^JJftf  OF  PRINCf^ 


BV  647  .B27  1855 

Barnes,  Albert,  1798-1870 

The  apostolic  church 


THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH, 


AN  INQUIRY  INTO  ITS 


ORGANIZATION  AND  GOVERNMENT, 


PARTICULARLY   WITH   REFERENCE   TO  THE 


CLAIMS   OF   EPISCOPACY. 


By  ALBERT  BARNES. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PRESBYTERIAN  PUBLICATION  COMMITTEE, 

1334  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

NEW  YORK  :   A.   D.   F.   RANDOLPH,   770   BROADWAY. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855,  by 

ALBERT  BARNES, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


STEREOTYPED  BV  L.  JOHNSON  A  CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


This  volume  is  designed  to  be  a  Manual  that 

may  be  put  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  led 

to  inquire   into   the  organization  of  the  Christian 

church.     It  is  not  intended  to  be  controversial,  or 

of  such  a  character  as  to  provoke  reply;  and  it  is 

hoped  that  it  will  not  be  construed  as  an  attach 

on  the  Episcopal  Church.     It  is  submitted  to  the 

public  because  it  is  believed  that  there  is  no  book 

on  this   subject   that  is  precisely  what  is  needed, 

in  regard  to  size   and    character,  to  put   into  the 

hands  of  those  in  the  churches  who  are  interested 

in  this  inquiry.     There  are  many  persons  who  are 

interested  in  the  inquiry  who  have  not  the  time  or 

the  means  to  examine  it  very  extensively.     Most 

of  the  works,  also,  which  have  been  written  on  this 

subject,  instead  of  confining  the   investigation  to 

the  Bible,  are  mainlv  occunied  with  an  examination 

3 


4  PREFACE. 

of  the  antiquities  of  the  church,  and  the  customs 
and  sentiments  of  the  "  Fathers."  The  claims  of 
Episcopacy,  also,  are  often  urged  with  great  zeal, 
and  pressed,  sometimes  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
create  embarrassment,  on  those  who  have  been 
trained  in  non-episcopal  churches;  and  there  is  no 
convenient  "manual"  accessible  to  which  they  can 
at  once  be  referred  as  showing  precisely  how  this 
matter  stands  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  argument  here  presented  is  wholly  scriptu- 
ral. The  characteristic  of  the  volume  is,  that  it  is 
an  appeal  to  the  Bible,  as  the  only  authority  in  the 
case,  and  as  a  sufficient  authority  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion. It  is  presumed  that  in  a  revelation  given  to 
mankind,  God  has  made  it  possible  to  ascertain 
what  was  the  original  organization  of  the  church, 
and  that  the  evidence  thus  furnished  is  such  that 
it  can  be  understood  and  appreciated  by  the  mass 
of  mankind.  It  is  assumed  in  this  argument  that 
nothing  but  the  testimony  of  the  Bible  on  the 
subject  can  be  binding  on  the  conscience,  and  that 
the  whole  matter  must  be,  and  may  safely  be,  left 
there.  It  is  not  intended  to  be  conceded,  however, 
that  the  argument  from  history  and  from  the 
"  Fathers"  would  be  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  but 


PREFACE.  O 

thai  point  is  not  referred  to ;  for,  whatever  may  be 
the  truth  in  -regard  to  that,  it  can  have  no  author- 
ity in  determining  what  was  the  constitution  of  the 
church  as  established  by  the  Saviour. 

The  foundation  of  the  argument  here  presented 
was  embodied  in  two  reviews  of  the  tract  entitled 
"  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture/'  by  the  Right 
Rev.  Dr.  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  Pennsylvania.  Those  reviews  were  first  pub- 
lished in  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,  of  New 
Haven,  in  1834  and  1835,  and  subsequently  in  a 
small  volume,  without  material  alteration.  They 
were  afterward  /mostly  rewritten,  and  were  cast 
into  the  form  of  a  consecutive  argument;  and 
in  this  form  they  were  again  published  in  this 
country  in  1843,  and  were  soon  after  -republished 
in  London. 

The  work  has  again  been  revised  for  the  pre- 
sent edition,  with  the  design,  mainly,  of  removing 
from  it  its  controversial  aspect,  and  making  it,  as 
its  title  indicates,  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Organi- 
zation and  Government  of  the  Apostolic  Church." 
It  has  been  necessary,  of  course,  to  examine  with 
freedom  the  arguments  in  favour  of  Episcopacy, 
so  far  as  they  are    derived  from    the   Scriptures; 


6 


PREFACE. 


and  for  this  purpose,  the  reference  to  the  tract 
of  Dr.  Onderdonk  is,  in  some  places,  retained. 
This  has  been  done  the  more  freely  because 
the  tract  has  been  published  by  the  "Protestant 
Episcopal  Tract  Society/'*  and  because  it  would 
be  impossible  to  find,  in  the  writings  in  defence  of 
Episcopacy,  a  more  full,  candid,  and  able  reference 
to  the  proof  from  Scripture  texts  relied  on  by 
Episcopalians,  than  is  to  be  found  in  this  tract  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk.  An  examination  of  the  reasons 
there  assigned  for  Episcopacy  is,  therefore,  an  ex- 
amination of  the  reasons  on  which  the  Episcopal 
argument  rests ;  and  the  tract  has^  been  referred  to 
in  the  edition  of  this  work  now  published,  in  the 
same  manner  as  other  Episcopal  authorities. 

This  work  has  but  one*  claim  to  public  atten- 
tion. It  is  that  of  being  an  examination  of  all 
that  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  that 
bears  on  the  organization  of  the  church.  Much 
is  gained  in  the  inquiry  into  the  organization  and 
government  of  the  church,  if  the  investigation  can 
be  confined  wholly  to  the  Scriptures.  There  all 
who  are  not  Episcopalians  are  willing  to  leave  the 

*  Printed  at  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Press,  1835. 


PREFACE.  I 

inquiry;  and  by  that  authority  alone  the  question 
must  be  ultimately  determined.  It  is  perilous  for 
Episcopacy  to  make  its  appeal  solely  to  the  Bible, 
and  much  is  gained  in  the  argument  when  there  is 
a  willingness  to  leave  the  question  there. 

This  work,  which  is  now  again  submitted  to  the 
public,  contains  nothing,  it  is  believed,  which  can 
pain  the  feelings  of  any  friend  of  Episcopacy,  or 
which  can  be  construed  into  a  want  of  respect  for 
the  Episcopal  Church.  For  the  favourable  regards 
of  the  public,  few  men  have  more  occasion  for  gra- 
titude than  I  have ;  and  now,  after  so  many  years 
have  passed  away  since  the  argument  was  first 
penned,  whatever  may  be  the  value  of  my  opinion, 
early  or  matured,  on  this  subject,  I  desire  that  this 
work  should  go  forth  in  this  permanent  form  as 
expressing  my  conviction — the  result  of  all  my 
study  of  the  Bible — in  regard  to  the  organization 
and  government  of  the  apostolic  church. 

Albert  Barnes. 

Philadelphia,  Aug.  21,  1855. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Reasons  why  the  Argument  ox  the  Constitution 
of  the  Church  should  be  confined  to  the 
Scriptures 13-32 

(1.)  The  whole  subject  one  of  mere  revelation,  13-15. 
(2.)  No  authority  has  been  given  to  the  Fathers  to 
determine  the  question,  15,  16.  (3.)  Evidence  in 
the  New  Testament  that  the  appeal  should  be  con- 
fined to  the  Scriptures,  16-18.  (4.)  The  Fathers 
of  the  church  were  not  in  circumstances  so  favour- 
able to  give  the  proper  information  as  the  Apostles, 
18,  19.  (5.)  It  is  impossible  to  settle  the  question 
by  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers,  19-30.  (6.)  The 
point  conceded  by  Episcopalians  themselves,  30-32. 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Claims  which  are  advanced  by  Episcopacy...  33-37 

CHAPTER  III. 

Examination  of  the  Particular  Claims  of  Epis- 
copacy   39-189 

Sec.  1.— The  Exclusive  Claim  of  the  "Bishop"  to  the 
Right  of  Ordination.  —  The    question  whether   the 

9 


10  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

apostles  alone  had  this  right,  38-40.  The  peculiarity 
of  the  apostolic  office. — The  apostles  were  originally 
appointed  to  be  "  witnesses"  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  40-45.  This  confirmed  by  the  election  of 
Matthias,  45-47 ;  by  the  statements  of  the  apostles,  A 

47,  48 ;  by  the  case  of  Paul,  48-53. 

The  inquiry  whether  there  was  any  arrangement 
for  continuing  the  "  succession  of  the  apostles,"  54. 
The  burden  of  proof  on  Episcopalians,  54,  55.  (1.) 
There  is  no  express  statement  that  the  "  succession" 
was  to  be  continued,  55-62 ;  (2.)  There  is  no  ar- 
rangement which  shows  that  it  was  designed  that  it 
should  be  continued.  Examination  of  the  alleged 
proofs : — the  argument  from  the  case  of  Matthias, 
63-72 ;  of  Barnabas,  72-81 ;  of  James,  81 ;  of  An- 
dronicus  and  Junia,  81,  82  ;  from  the  charge  of  Paul 
to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  82,  83;  from  the  case  of 
Timothy,  84-107;  of  Titus,  107-110;  of  the  "an- 
gel" of  the  churches  in  Rev.  ii.  iii.,  1]  1-122.  The 
point  practically  conceded  by  Episcopalians,  123- 
126 ;  the  impossibility  of  establishing  the  "  succes- 
sion"— case  of  the  ordination  of  English  "bishops" 
by  Scotch  presbyters,  127-130  ;  testimony  of  Hook- 
er, 130,  131 ;  concession  and  argument  of  Arch- 
bishop Whately,  131-137. 

Sec.  2.— The  Rite  of  Confirmation 138-164 

What  understood  by  it,  138-140;  claimed  to  be 
of  divine  authority,  141-144.  The  use  of  the  word 
"confirm"  in  the  New  Testament,  144-146.  The 
laying  on  of  hands  urged  in  support  of  the  claim 
shown  to  be  connected  with  imparting  the  mira- 
culous gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  146-151.  Examina- 
tion of  the  passage  in  Heb.  vi.  1,  2,  151-155.  The 
Saviour  appointed  no  such  rite,  155,  156.  Objec- 
tions to  the  rite,  156-164. 


CONTENTS.  11 

PAGES 

Sec.  3.— The  Claims  of  the  "Bishop"  to  the  Right 

of  Supervision  and  Discipline 164-189 

The  two  cases  of  discipline  appealed  to  hy  Epis- 
copalians examined  :  that  in  Corinth,  167-181:  that 
in  Ephesus,  181-189. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Constitution*  of  the  Church  as  established 

by  the  Saviour  axd  the  Apostles 189-252 

Sec.  1.— The  Officers  of  the  Church 190-209 

I.  Those  which  were  designed  to  be  temporary  : 
(1.)  The  Apostles,  190-193;  (2.)  The  Seventy  Dis- 
ciples, 193-195;  (3.)  Prophets,  195,  196;  (4.)  Dea- 
conesses, 196,  197. 

II.  Permanent  officers  mentioned  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church  in  the  New  Testament:  (1.) 
Those  appointed  to  the  office  of  Ministers,  197-201, 
under  the  names  of  (a)  preachers,  198 — (6)  bishops 
or  overseers,  198,  199— (c)  pastors,  199,  200— (d) 
teachers,  201 — (e)  evangelists,  201;  (2.)  Rulers, 
201-204;  (3.)  Deacons,  205,  206.  (4.)  Evidence 
that  the  permanent  pastoral  relation  was  intended, 
206-209. 

Sec.  2. — The  actual  Organization  and  Government  of 

the  Church  as  described  in  the  New  Testament 209-230 

(1.)  Presbyters  had  the  right  of  ordaining,  209, 
aeq.  Proof  from  1  Tim.  to.  14,  pp.  218-223.  (2.) 
The  churches  were  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ad- 
ministering discipline.  Proof  from  Acts  xx.  17, 
28,  p.  224 ;  from  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  p.  224 ;  from  Heb. 
xiii.  7 ;  from  1  Thess.  v.  12,  pp.  225-230. 

Sec.  3. — The  Primitive  Churches  were  organized  with- 
out a  Prelate,  and  without  three  "  Orders  of  Clergy"  230-238 

Sec.  4. — Conclusion 238-252 


THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


CHAPTER    I. 

REASONS  WHY  THE  ARGUMENT  ON  THE  CONSTI- 
TUTION OF  THE  CHURCH  SHOULD  BE  CONFINED 
TO    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

In  the  discussion  pursued  in  this  volume,  the 
argument  will  be  confined  wholly  to  the  Scriptures, 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  whole  subject  of  the  organization  and 
government  of  the  church  is  one  of  mere  revela- 
tion. It  is  connected  with  a  revealed  religion,  and 
there  can,  therefore,  be  no  authority  in  the  case, 
except  that  which  is  derived  from  the  declared  will 
of  God.  It  is  claimed  for  the  church,  by  all  the 
parties  in  the  controversy,  that  it  is  a  divine  insti- 
tution ;  and  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  with  one 
voice,  maintain  that  their  ministry  is  of  divine  ap- 
pointment. It  never  occurs  to  them  to  affirm  that 
the  arrangement  of  the  clergy  into  "  three  orders" 
is   a   mere   matter   of  expediency,   or   is   adopted 

2  13 


14  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

because  experience  has  shown  that  this  is  the  best 
■  arrangement,  or  because  other  methods  have  failed 
in  promoting  the  spirituality  of  the  church,  or  even 
because  it  has  unbroken  tradition  in  its  favour.  It 
is  urged  that  the  arrangement  is  of  divine  authority, 
and  it  is  adopted  primarily  because  it  is  believed  to 
be  founded  on  the  Bible.  So  uniform  are  the  claims 
on  this  point,  that,  if  this  were  abandoned,  the  whole 
fabric  would  fall,  and  the  claim  of  being  the  only 
arrangement  which  God  has  made  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  which  is  now  set  up  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  prelacy,  must  then  be  given  up ;  for,  if 
it  were  a  mere  matter  of  expediency,  any  other  sys- 
tem founded  on  expediency  would  be  equally  proper 
and  binding. 

Such  being  the  case,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
argument  should  be  confined  to  the  Scriptures.  If 
the  religion  with  which  the  ministry  is  connected 
were  a  matter  of  mere  human  origin  or  human  ap- 
pointment, then  an  appeal  to  the  Bible  as  a  supposed 
revelation  would  be  impertinent  and  improper.  If 
it  were  a  religion  of  the  state,  then  all  that  would 
be  needful  would  be  to  appeal  to  the  statutes  of  the 
land.  If  it  were  a  question  of  expediency,  then  the 
appeal  should  be  to  what  experience  has  shown  to 
be  the  best  methods  of  government,  and  to  the  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  probable  advantage  which  could  be 
urged  in  favour  of  different  systems.  If  it  were  to 
be  settled  by  mere  custom,  or  by  antiquity — as  it 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  15 

may  occur  that  the  claim  to  title  to  lands  is  to  be 
settled,  or  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  determine 
some  usage  or  right  under  a  civil  government — then 
it  would  be  proper  to  appeal  to  antiquity,  and  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  Fathers.  But  none  of  these 
things  exist.  It  is  not  a  human  institution  j  nor  is 
it  a  mere  creature  of  the  state ;  nor  is  it  a  thing  of 
expediency;  nor  is  it  a  simple  question  about  anti- 
quity : — it  is  a  question  whether  God  has  appointed 
the  Episcopal  orders  of  the  ministry  to  govern  the 
churches;  and  this  question  can  be  settled  only  by 
an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures. 

2.  No  authority  has  been  given  to  the  "Fathers" 
to  determine  this  question.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  they  were  authorized  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  either  individually  or  by  councils,  to  deter- 
mine what  should  be  the  arrangement  in  the  govern- 
inent  of  the  church  ;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that 
they  were  to  be  regarded  as  the  infallible  expounders 
of  what  the  will  of  the  Author  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem was.  It  was  not  promised  that  they  should  have 
any  special  wisdom  to  arrange  matters  in  the  church ; 
to  appoint  officers ;  to  settle  controversies,  or  to  ap- 
point orders  in  the  ministry  which  should  be  re- 
garded as  commissioned  by  God.  If  the  importance 
which  has  been  attached  to  their  views  in  this  mat- 
ter had  been  contemplated  by  the  Saviour,  it  is 
remarkable  that  he  left  no  intimation  that  their 
sentiments  would  be  entitled  to  such  deference,  or 


16  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

that  their  declarations  should  be  authoritative  in 
the  churches.  If  it  had  been  intended  that  coun- 
cils should  be  regarded  as  having  authority  to  settle 
this,  then  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  some 
intimation  of  this  would  be  furnished  in  the  dis- 
courses of  the  Saviour.  It  is  needless,  however,  to 
say  that  no  such  authority  from  the  New  Testament 
can  be  adduced. 

8.  There  is  evidence  in  the  New  Testament  itself, 
that  the  appeal  should  be  confined  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  that  Christ  meant  that  the  inquiry  should  be 
limited  to  them.  This  evidence  is  found  in  such 
facts  as  these :  The  account  of  the  manner  in  which' 
he  organized  the  church  looks  as  if  he  designed  to 
arrange  the  whole  subject  himself,  so  as  to  leave  no 
ground  for  the  necessity  of  an  appeal  to  coming 
generations  of  men.  He  set  apart  an  order  of  men 
with  great  solemnity,  and  invested  them  with  great 
authority,  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  the  gospel 
and  organizing  the  church.  He  taught  them  per- 
sonally more  than  three  years,  and  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  them  fully  acquainted  with  his  views  and 
designs.  He  gave  them  full  authority  in  the  case 
to  "bind  and  loose ;"  to  establish  and  dissolve; 
with  no  intimation  that  this  duty  was  to  devolve  on 
any  of  their  successors.  The  instructions  which  he 
gave,  were  given  to  them,  not  to  a  fancied  order  of 
successors;  to  those  whom  he  had  trained  under 
his  own  eye,  not  to  those  who  were  to  be  trained 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  17 

under  theirs.  He  never  intimated  that  they  would 
be  unable  to  complete  the  arrangement,  and  to 
settle  the  church  on  a  permanent  basis ;  or  that  it 
would  be  necessary  for  them  to  leave  any  part  of 
the  arrangement  to  be  perfected  in  future  times. 
Those  men,  thus  appointed,  actually  undertook  the 
work,  fully  believing  that  they  were  competent  to 
it,  and  acting  just  as  if  they  were  empowered  to 
complete  the  arrangement.  They  went  forth  and 
preached ;  they  founded  churches ;  they  appointed 
officers  j  they  gave  directions  in  regard  to  the  rites 
and  observances  of  worship ;  and  they  undeniably 
left  the  impression  everywhere  that  they  regarded 
themselves  as  invested  with  the  fullest  authority  to 
organize  the  church.  A  record  has  been  preserved, 
containing  a  full  account  of  what  was  done  by  them 
in  establishing  churches;  and  to  what  can  we  so 
naturally  look  as  to  that,  to  know  in  what  manner 
the  Saviour  designed  that  it  should  be  done? 
There  is  no  intimation  in  that  record,  or  in  any  of 
the  writings  of  these  apostles,  that  they  left  any 
thing  to  be  done  by  those  who  should  succeed  them. 
There  is  no  hint  that  their  successors  were  to  com- 
plete or  to  perfect  the  plan ;  or  that  they  were  to 
give  information  about  what  the  apostles  had  done. 
Any  one  who  reads  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and 
the  Epistles,  cannot  fail  to  be  convinced  that  the 
writers  supposed  they  were  giving  all  the  informa- 
tion which  was  needful  for  the  guidance  of  nian- 

2* 


18  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

kind    about    the    organization    of    the    Christian 
church. 

4.  The  "  Fathers"  of  the  church  were  not  in  cir- 
cumstances so  favourable  to  give  the  proper  infor- 
mation as  the  apostles  themselves.  The  "  Fathers" 
comprise  a  succession  of  men  who  lived  in  the  first 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era — usually  supposed  to 
include  those  who  lived  in  the  first  four  or  five  cen- 
turies. Subsequent  to  that  period  no  one  appeals  to 
the  "Fathers"  in  proof  of  what  was  the  early  con- 
stitution of  the  Christian  church.  Yet,  within  that 
time,  what  extraordinary  advantage  had  they  for 
knowing  what  was  done  by  the  apostles?  Why 
should  we  appeal  to  them,  rather  than  to  the  record 
which  the  apostles  themselves  made  of  what  they 
had  done  ?  They  were  not  inspired  men ;  most  of 
them  lived  in  places  remote  from  the  fields  where 
the  apostles  laboured ;  and  not  a  few  of  them,  un- 
deniably, several  generations  after  the  apostles. 
Why  should  we  go  to  them  to  know  what  order  the 
apostles  established  in  the  church?  Why  should 
we  dip  up  water  from  the  Ganges  or  the  Mississippi 
where  they  pour  their  floods  into  the  ocean,  after 
they  have  worn  the  shores  and  mingled  with  the 
streams  flowing  into  them  for  thousands  of  miles,  to 
know  what  the  water  is  at  the  fountains  ?  He  who 
could  stand  near  those  fountains,  and  drink  the 
water  there,  would  never  think  of  wandering  by  the 
course  of  the  turbid  river  to  examine  it  as  it  flows 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  19 

along,  or  as  it  mingles  with  the  ocean,  to  know  what 
were  its  qualities. 

5.  It  is  impossible  to  settle  the  question  by  an 
appeal  to  the  "  Fathers."  The  attempt  has  been 
made  in  this  controversy  for  centuries,  and  with  no 
prospect  of  coming  any  nearer  to  a  termination. 
To  whatever  cause  it  may  be  traced,  it  is  a  simple 
matter  of  history,  that  no  witnesses  of  facte  have 
ever  been  less  satisfactory  than  the  so-called  Chris- 
tian Fathers.  No  set  of  writers  has  ever  lived, 
from  whom  so  contradictory  statements  are  de- 
rived; who  can  be  appealed  to  with  so  much  plausi- 
bility on  both  sides  of  a  question,  and  whom  it  is  so 
easy  to  set  in  array  against  each  other.  As  this 
will  be  conceded  by  all  who  have  ever  read  them, 
or  who  have  ever  looked  into  the  controversies  on 
the  subject  of  the  organization  of  the  church,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  adduce  any  proof  of  it.  This  re- 
mark can  be  made  without,  in  the  least,  impeaching 
the  piety  of  the  "Fathers,"  or  undervaluing  the  ser- 
vices which  they  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth,  or 
displacing  them  from  the  position  which  they  ought 
to  hold  in  the  affections  and  grateful  remembrance 
of  mankind.  Whatever  may  be  the  fact  about  the 
actual  contradictions,  or  want  of  consistency,  of 
any  of  the  "Fathers,"  it  can  be  traced  to  other 
causes  than  to  a  want  of  piety  or  general  excel- 
lence of  character.  Much  may  be  said,  on  each  of 
these  points,  with  more  plausibility  and  probability 


20  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

than  would  be  desirable  when  speaking  of  good  men, 
but  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  this  in  order  to  see 
their  entire  unfitness  to  decide  the  Episcopal  contro- 
versy. In  the  management  of  this  controversy 
hitherto,  it  is  impossible  for  any  one,  who  has  any 
suitable  regard  for  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  not  to 
feel  pain  at  the  manner  in  which  the  argument  has 
been  conducted. 

By  common  consent,  almost,  the  writers  on  both 
sides  have  turned  from  the  New  Testament,  where 
the  controversy  might  have  been  brought  to  a  speedy 
issue,  to  listen  to  the  decisions  of  the  "  Fathers  j" 
and  as  might  have  been  expected,  have 

"Pound  no  end,  in  wandering  mazes  lost." 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  friends  of  prelacy  to  do  so; 
and  it  was  the  folly  of  their  opponents  to  suffer  them 
to  choose  the  field  of  debate,  and  to  weary  them- 
selves  in  an  effort  to  fix  the  meaning,  to  secure  the 
consistency,  and  obtain  the  suffrages  of  the  "  Fa- 
thers/' Full  well  was  it  known  by  the  friends  of 
Episcopacy  in  other  times,  that  the  New  Testament 
could  furnish  only  the  most  slender  support  for  their 
claims.  In  the  tinies  of  the  papacy,  it  had  always 
been  defended  by  an  appeal  to  the  "Fathers."  The 
system  had  risen  there,  sustained  not  even  profess- 
edly by  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  but  by  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  elders.  The  ranks  and  orders  of  the 
papal  priesthood  could  be  defended  only  by  the  au- 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  21 

thority  of  a  church  which  claimed  infallibility,  and 
which  might  dispense,  therefore,  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  Reformers  came  forth  from  the  bosom 
of  the  papacy  with  much  of  this  feeling.  They  ap- 
proached this  subject  with  high  reverence  for  the 
opinions  of  past  times ;  with  a  deference  for  the  Fa- 
thers, nourished  by  all  the  forms  of  their  education, 
by  all  existing  institutions,  and  by  the  reluctance  of 
the  human  mind  to  break  away  from  the  established 
customs  of  ages.  On  the  one  hand,  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  found  their  proofs  in  the  common  law 
of  the  church — the  institutions  which  had  existed 
"  time  whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to 
the  contrary;"  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  opponents 
of  prelacy  were  equally  anxious  to  show  that  they 
had  not  departed  from  the  customs  of  the  Fathers, 
and  that  the  defence  of  their  institutions  might  be 
found  in  times  far  remote,  and  in  records  which  re- 
ceived the  veneration  and  commanded  the  confi- 
dence of  the  Christian  world.  Into  this  abyss  both 
parties  plunged.  In  this  immense  chaos  of  opinions 
and  interpretations — into  these  moving,  disorganized, 
jostling  elements,  where,  as  in  the  first  chaos,  light 
struggled  with  darkness,  and  confusion  reigned,  they 
threw  themselves,  to  endeavour  severally  to  find 
support  for  their  opinions.  "  Whatsoever  time,  or 
the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance,"  says  Milton, 
"  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  this  present,  in 
her  huge  drag-net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shells 


22  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

• 

or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those  are  the  Fa- 
thers." With  those  who,  according  to  Mosheim,* 
deemed- it  not  only  lawful,  but  commendable,  to  de- 
ceive and  lie  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  piety,  how 
could  any  point  be  settled  that  involved  contro- 
versy? With  men  who  held  to  every  strange  and 
ridiculous  opinion ;  to  every  vagary  that  the  human 
mind  can  conceive;*}*  it  would  be  strange  if  both 
sides  in  this  controversy  did  not  find  enough  that 
had  the  appearance  of  demonstration,  to  perplex 
and  embarrass  an  opponent.  In  examining  this 
controversy,  as  it  was  conducted  in  former  times, 
no  one  could  help  being  amused  or  pained  at  the 
perfect  complacency  with  which  a  passage  from 
one  of  the  Fathers  is  adduced  in  defence  of  either 
side  of  the  question,  and  the  perfect  ease  with 
which,  by  a  new  translation,  or  by  introducing  a 
few  words  of  the  context,  or,  more  frequently,  by  an 
appeal  to  some  other  part  of  the  same  author,  not 
studious  himself  of  consistency,  the  passage  is 
shown  to  mean  just  the  contrary;  and  then  again  a 
new  version,  or  yet  another  quotation,  would  give  it 
a  new  aspect,  and  restore  it  to  its  former  honours. J; 
Thus,  the  Fathers  became  a  mere  football  between 


*  Murdock's  Mosheim,  yoI.  i.  p.  159. 
f  See  Tillemont's  Ecclesiastical  History,  passim. 
J  See  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Miller,  and  Dr.  Bowden  on  Episco- 
pacy, passim. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  23 

the  contending  parties;  and  thus,  in  this  con- 
troversy, the  weary  searcher  for  truth  finds  no 
solid  ground.  Eminently  here,  "  he  which  is  first 
in  his  cause  seeineth  just;  but  his  neighbour 
cometh  and  searcheth  him."  Prov.  xviii.  17.  To 
this  wearisome  and  unsatisfactory  toil  he  is  doomed 
who  will  read  all  the  older  controversies  on  Episco- 
pacy.    There  he, 

V  O'er  bog  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense,  or  rare, 
With  head,  hands,  wings,  or  feet,  pursues  his  way, 
And  swims,  or  sinks,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies." 

The  following  very  striking  remark  of  Bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor — himself  one  of  the  brightest  orna- 
ments of  Episcopacy — expresses  undoubtedly  the 
true  view  in  regard  to  the  value  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  as  instructors  and  guides  : — "  It  must  be 
acknowledged,"  says  he,  "that  the  writers  of  the  an- 
cient dispensation  were  such  as  those  should  be  who 
were  looking  onward  toward  the  bright  day  of  gospel 
splendour;  while  the  early  Christian  doctors  were 
just  such  as  one  might  expect  to  find  in  those  who 
were  looking  onward  toward  that  deep  night  of  super- 
stition which  covered  Europe  during  the  Middle 
Ages.  The  dawn  is  seen  to  be  gleaming  upon  the 
foreheads  of  the  one  class  of  writers,  while  a  sullen 
gloom  overshadows  the  brows  of  the  other."* 

*  Quoted  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  January,  1824,  p,  105. 


24  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

Were  we  to  adduce  the  most  striking  instance  of 
the  plastic  nature  of  the  proof  adduced  from  the 
Fathers,  we  should  refer  to  the  epistles  of  Ignatius. 
They  seem  to  he  a  plain,  straight-forward  account  of 
the  existence  of  Presbyterianism  in  his  time.  They 
are  substantially  such  a  description  as  a  man  would 
give,  writing  in  the  inflated  and  exaggerated  man- 
ner in  which  the  Orientals  wrote,  of  Presbyterianism 
as  it  exists  in  the  United  States.  Yet  it  is  well 
known  that,  with  the  utmost  pertinacity,  those  let- 
ters have  been  adduced  as  proving  the  divine  origin 
of  Episcopacy.  And  so  confident  have  been  the 
assertions  on  this  subject,  that  not  a  few  non-Epis- 
copalians have  given  them  up  as  unmanageable, 
and  have  stoutly  contended,  what  may  be  very  true, 
that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  them  are  forgeries. 

Any  man  can  see  what  a  hopeless  task  is  before 
him  if  he  endeavours  to  settle  this  controversy  by 
the  authority  of  the  Fathers.  The  waste  of  time, 
and  talent,  and  learning,  on  this  subject,  is  fitted 
deeply  to  humble  the  heart.  And  the  passion  has 
not  ceased.  Even  now,  men  high  in  oflice  and  in 
rank,  leave  the  New  Testament  and  appeal  to  the 
Fathers.  Episcopacy  is  discarded,  not  principally 
because  the  New  Testament  is  a  stranger  to  it,  but 
because  Jerome  was  not  a  prelatist;  it  is  rejected, 
not  because  it  cannot  be  made  out  from  the  Bible, 
but  because  it  is  a  matter  of  debate  whether  the 
Fathers  teach  it  or  not. 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  25 

But,  apart  from  all  that  might  be  said  to  impugn 
the  authority  of  the  Fathers  on  certain  points,  there 
are  other  circumstances  which  show,  in  the  most 
ample  manner,  that  such  a  controversy  cannot  he 
settled  by  an  appeal  to  them.  One  is,  the  great. 
number  of  the  authorities  to  be  examined,  and  the 
amount  of  writing  with  which  a  man  must  become 
familiar  who  relies  on  this  testimony — putting  it 
wholly  out  of  the  power  of  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
tians, and  even  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  to  deter- 
mine what  was  the  organization  of  the  church,  if  the 
appeal  is  to  be  made  to  them.  In  the  works  of  the 
Fathers  to  which  I  have  access,  embracing  those  of 
the  first  five  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  there  are 
no  less  than  fifty-four  folio  volumes,  besides  a  con- 
siderable number  of  smaller  size.  How  could  the 
mass  of  Christians  hope  to  obtain  sufficient  famili- 
arity with  those  numerous  and  massive  tomes,  to  be 
able  to  educe  from  them  a  correct  view  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  primitive  church  ?  How  different  is 
such  an  appeal,  in  regard  to  the  facility  of  coming 
to  any  satisfactory  conclusion,  from  that  which  all 
men  may  make  to  the  small  volume  of  the  New 
Testament ! — A  second  circumstance  is  this  :  those 
volumes  are  all  in  languages  now  unspoken.  There 
is  of  necessity,  therefore,  much  difficulty  in  arriving 
with  certainty  at  the  exact  meaning  of  the  writers. 
There  is  much  ambiguity;  much  to  perplex  the 
scholar ;  much  which  may  be  plausibly  interpreted 

3 


26  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

in  different  modes,  and  which  may,  by  a  new  trans- 
lation, or  by  being  presented  in  a  different  connec- 
tion, be  adduced  on  both  sides  of  a  question.  Be- 
sides, how  are  the  mass  of  Christians  all  over  the 
world  to  have  access  to  those  volumes  ?  Can  it  be 
presumed  that  they  are  sufficiently  familiar  with  the 
Greek  and  Latin  lau ^liases  to  be  able  to  settle  a 
controversy  of  this  nature  ? — A  third  circumstance 
is  this  :  there  is  much  that  is  vague  in  statement ; 
unsettled  in  definition ;  loose  in  narrative  or  decla- 
mation among  those  writers,  as  there  must  be 
alwa}-s  among  so  voluminous  authors.  It  is  unde- 
niable, too,  that  they  not  unfrequently  contradict 
each  other  and  themselves. — A  fourth  circumstance 
may  be  adverted  to :  it  is  the  remarkable  difference 
in  regard  to  simplicity,  clearness,  directness,  appa- 
rent honesty,  and  all  that  gives  value  to  written  tes- 
timony, between  the  character  of  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Fathers.  This  difference  I  cannot 
better  express,  than  in  the  language  of  one  emi- 
'  nently  qualified  to  express  it,  and  who  has  noticed 
the  difference  with  no  reference  to^the  point  now 
under  discussion.  It  is  the  testimony  of  Neander.* 
"  The  first  authors  which  succeeded  the  apostles  are 
the  so-called  Christian  Fathers,  who  began  at  the 
apostolic  times,  and  should  have  been  the  scholars 
of  the  apostles.    In  this  kind  of  writers,  a  particular 

*  Geschicbte  d.  Christlichen  Religion  und  Kirche,  1.  c.  1009. 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  27 

thing  deserving  attention  is,  the  remarkable  differ- 
ence between  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  the 
writings  of  the  apostolic  Fathers  who  lived  even  so 
near  to  their  times.  The  transition  from  one  class 
of  writers  to  another,  is  usually  gradual ;  here  it  is 
sudden.  There  is  here  no  gradual  transition,  but 
a  spring,  [or  leap — ein  Sprung,^  which  is  sufficient 
to  turn  the  attention  to  the  recognition  of  the  spe- 
cial efficiency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  souls  of  the 
apostles. " 

On  this  subject,  also,  the  following  remarks  of 
Archbishop  Whately  will  commend  themselves  to 
every  candid  mind;  and  they  are  of  the  more 
value  as  they  come  from  one  who  has  been  ho- 
noured with  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the 
Episcopal  Church : 

"  For  when  referred  to  the  works  of  the  orthodox 
ancient  Fathers,  they  [men]  find  that  a  very  large 
portion  of  these  works  are  lost;  or  that  some  frag- 
ments or  reports  of  them  by  other  writers  alone 
remain  :  they  find  again  that  what  has  come  down 
to  us  is  so  vast  in  amount  that  a  life  is  not  sufficient 
for  the  attentive  study  of  even  the  chief  part  of  it : 
they  find  these  authors  by  no  means  agreed,  on  all 
points,  with  each  other,  or  with  themselves,  and 
that  learned  men  again  are  not  agreed  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  them ;  and  still  less  agreed  as  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  each,  and  the  degree  of  weight  due  to 
his  judgment  on  several  points;  nor  even  agreed 


28  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

by  some  centuries  as  to  the  degree  of  antiquity  that 
is  to*  make  the  authority  of  each  decisive,  or  more 
or  less  approaching  to  decisive. 

"  Every  thing  in  short  pertaining  to  this  appeal  is 
obscure — uncertain — disputable — and  actually  dis- 
puted— to  such  a  degree,  that  even  those  who  are 
not  able  to  read  the  original  authors  may  yet  be 
perfectly  competent  to  perceive  how  unstable  a 
foundation  they  furnish.  They  can  perceive  that 
the  mass  of  Christians  are  called  on  to  believe  and 
to  do  what  is  essential  to  Christianity,  in  implicit 
reliance  on  the  reports  of  their  respective  pastors 
as  to  what  certain  deep  theological  antiquaries 
have  reported  to  them,  respecting  the  reports  given 
by  certain  ancient  Fathers,  of  the  reports  current  in 
their  times  concerning  apostolical  usages  and  insti- 
tutions !  And  yet,  whoever  departs  in  any  degree 
from  these,  is  to  be  regarded  at  best  in  an  interme- 
diate state  between  Christianity  and  heathenism ! 
Surely  the  tendency  of  this  procedure  must  be  to 
drive  the  doubting  into  confirmed  (though,  perhaps, 
secret)  infidelity,  and  to  fill  with  doubts  the  most 
sincerely  pious,  if  they  are  anxiously  desirous  of 
attaining  truth,  and  unhappily  have  sought  if  from 
such  instructors/'* 

In  settling  an  important  question,  how  different  is 
the  argument  derived  from  such  writings,  from  an 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  ii.  #  21. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  29 

appeal  to  the  New  Testament !  That  is  one  small 
volume;  simple  in  its  character  and  statements; 
easily  perused;  with  no  ambiguity,  no  pomp  of 
rhetoric,  no  prejudice  in  favour  of  an  existing  cus- 
tom ;  with  no  contradiction  between  one  writer  and 
another,  and  no  inconsistency  in  the  statements  of 
the  same  writer  at  different  times  and  in  different 
circumstances.  It  contains  not,  moreover,  the  lan- 
guage of  conjecture;  it  does  not  depend  for  its  au- 
thority on  human  reasoning ;  and  it  is  undiluted  in 
any  of  its  statements  by  the  reasonings  of  philosophy 
or  by  tradition. 

If  it  should  be  said  here,  that  experience  has 
shown  that  it  is  impossible  to  settle  this  controversy 
by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures ;  that  men  differ  as 
much  about  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers  on 
the  constitution  of  the  church  as  they  do  about  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers;  and  that,  though  the 
churches  have  had  the  Bible  for  eighteen  hundred 
years,  the  Christian  world  is  still  wholly  divided  in 
opinion  on  the  subject, — I  reply,  (1.)  That  whatever 
may  be  the  reasons  why  men  have  varied  so  much 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
case,  it  is  still  true  that  it  is  easier  to  come  to  a  de- 
termination of  the  question  by  an  appeal  to  that 
than  by  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers.  To  the  eye  of 
common  sense  it  is  clear,  that  the  testimony  of  a 
small  volume  like  the  New  Testament,  written  at 
the  time  when  the  church  was  organized,  and  by 

3* 


30  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

the  men  who  did  it,  can  be  more  easily  arrived  at 
than  those  of  a  succession  of  voluminous  writers 
such  as  the  Fathers  are,  extending  through  a  period 
of  several  hundred  years.  I  reply,  (2.)  That  one 
main  reason,  and  perhaps  the  only  reason,  why  the 
sentiments  of  men  have  been  divided  in  the  case, 
and  why  the  whole  controversy  has  not  been  long 
since  settled  is,  that  they  are  constantly  leaving  the 
New  Testament  and  appealing  to  the  Fathers.  The 
argument  has  never  been  confined,  on  either  side, 
to  the  Bible.  Each  party  has  felt  itself  bound, 
either  in  self-defence  or  to  meet  its  opponent,  to 
appeal  to  the  Fathers.  The  war  has  raged  there. 
The  triumphs  or  defeats  have  been  on  that  field ; 
and,  in  the  whole  range  of  the  controversy,  it  is  be- 
lieved there  is  not  a  single  volume,  on  either  side, 
that  makes  the  appeal  solely  and  exclusively  to  the 
Bible.  And  if  this  be  so,  then  it  should  not  be  said 
that  experience  has  shown  that  it  is  impossible  to 
settle  this  inquiry  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures. 
Were  the  volumes  of  the  Fathers  all  burned  and 
forgotten,  and  were  all  the  influence  which  they 
have  exerted  over  this  controversy  removed,  it 
would  require  but  a  brief  period  to  determine 
whether  Episcopacy  is  founded  on  the  Bible. 

G.  That  the  appeal  should  be  made  to  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  is  now  conceded  by  Episcopalians  them- 
selves. It  was  long,  indeed,  before  the  advocates 
for   prelacy  were  willing   to    concede,  in  so  many 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  31 

words,  that  the  controversy  was  to  be  determined 
by  the  Bible ;  and  that  it  is  conceded  in  principle 
is  a  point  gained  of  inestimable  importance,  and 
will  bring  the  controversy  to  a  termination  whenever 
it  is  honestly  and  fully  applied.  That  it  is  conceded 
is  clear  from  the  admissions  of  one  who,  as  a  prelate 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  has  a  right  to  express 
the  prevalent  sentiment  in  that  church,  and  whose 
words  may  be  regarded  as  having  the  force  of 
authority.  The  sentiment,  also,  should  be  allowed 
to  have  greater  weight  because  the  tract  in  which 
it  occurs  has  been  issued  by  the  "Protestant 
Episcopal  Tract  Society/'  and  may  be  supposed, 
therefore,  to  express  the  present  views  of  the  whole. 
Episcopal  Church,  at  least  in  the  United  States. 
The  language  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  the  tract  re- 
ferred to,*  is  the  following :  "  The  claim  of  Epis- 
copacy to  be  of  divine  institution,  and,  therefore,  * 
obligatory  on  the  church,  rests  fundamentally  on 
the  one  question :  Has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ? 
If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily  binding.  This 
one  point  should  be  kept  in  view  in  every  discus- 
sion of  the  subject;  no  argument  is  worth  taking 
into  the  account  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on 

*  "Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture."  I  quote  now,  and 
shall  hereafter,  from  the  tract  published  at  the  "  Protestant 
Episcopal  Press,"  in  connection  with  other  articles  on  the 
subject,  and  called  "Episcopacy  Examined  and  Re-examined." 
New  York,  1836. 


32  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of 
Episcopacy."  P.  3.  The  simple  and  honest  avowal 
of  a  sentiment  like  this  from  such  a  quarter,  should 
be  hailed  by  every  friend  of  the  truth  as  placing 
the  whole  of  this  discussion  on  a  proper  basis.  It 
is  a  subject  of  sincere  congratulation  that  it  is  now 
conceded  that  we  may  bring  to  this  subject  the 
great  principle  of  the  Reformation,  that  all  religious 
opinions  are  to  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures.  It  in- 
dicates a  healthy  state  of  things  in  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country.  It  will  save  endless  dis- 
putes about  words,  and  much  useless  toil  in  endea- 
vouring to  give  consistency  and  sense  to  the  Fathers. 
This  mode  of  reasoning,  too,  will  soon  decide  the 
controversy.  Hereafter,  let  it  be  held  up  as  a  great 
principle  from  which,  neither  in  spirit  nor  in  form, 
we  are  ever  to  depart,  that  if  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Episcopacy  are  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  they 
are  to  be  abandoned,  or  held,  as  Cranmer  held  them, 
as  matters  of  mere  expediency.  Let  this  truth  go 
forth,  never  to  be  recalled ;  and  let  every  man  who 
attempts  to  defend  the  claims  of  prelates  appeal  to 
the  Bible  alone.  On  this  appeal,  with  confidence, 
we  rest  the  issue  of  this  case. 

For  reasons  such  as  have  now  been  stated,  it  is 
proposed  to  conduct  the  following  investigation 
solely  with  reference  to  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. By  the  results  of  such  an  investigation  the 
Protestant  community  must  ultimately  abide 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  33 


CHAPTER    H. 

THE   CLAIMS   WHICH   ARE   ADVANCED   BY 
EPISCOPACY. 

Episcopacy  is  a  religion  of  claims.  It  advances 
certain  pretensions  relating  to  important  points  in 
the  government  and  organization  of  the  church, 
which,  if  well  founded,  are  binding  on  all  churches, 
and  which,  in  their  tendency,  go  to  unsettle  the 
claims  of  all  others.  It  is  not  an  argument,  on  the 
part  of  the  Episcopalian,  drawn  from  expediency,  or 
human  prudence,  or  a  conventional  arrangement 
among  men ;  nor  is  it  an  argument  which  can  admit 
other  churches  to  be  on  the  same  basis  with  them- 
selves, or  other  ministers  to  be  the  commissioned 
servants  of  God.  If  Episcopacy  be  of  divine  origin; 
if  it  be  the  form  prescribed  in  the  New  Testament 
for  the  organization  of  the  church;  if  it  was  insti- 
tuted by  the  Redeemer  and  the  apostles, — then, 
whatever  other  consequences  may  flow  from  it,  or 
however  inconsistent  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy 
may  be  in  carrying  out  these  principles,  the  regular 
result  of  the  claim  is,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is 
the  only  true  church,  and  that  all  other  churches 


34  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

are  of  human  origin.  This  consequence  follows 
inevitably.  These  remarks  are  not  made  with 
a  view  of  exciting  prejudice  in  any  minds  against 
the  system,  but  merely  to  show  the  nature  of  the 
claims  which  are  thus  advanced.  It  is  well  known 
that  these  consequences  are  not  allowed  by  many 
Episcopalians ;  and  there  is  much  gained  on  the 
score  of  charity  in  the  fact  that  the  advocates  of  a 
system  are  not  always  consistent  with  their  own 
principles.  Yet  any  one  can  see  that  the  claims 
of  any  system  to  be  exclusively  scriptural  or  of 
divine  authority  in  its  origin  leads,  in  fact,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  to  the  conclusion  that  all 
others  are  mere  human  and  unauthorized  arrange- 
ments. 

In  pursuance  of  this  thought,  I  remark,  then,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  the  friends  of 
Episcopacy.  They  set  up  a  claim — a  claim  which 
they  affirm  to  be  binding  on  all  the  churches  of 
every  age.  It  is  a  claim  which  is  specific,  and 
which  must  be  made  out,  or  their  whole  pretensions 
fall.  In  what  predicament  it»  may  leave  other 
churches,  is  not  the  question.  It  would  not  prove 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  origin,  could  its  friends 
show  that  Presbyterianism  is  unfounded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  to 
support;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized; 
or  that  lay  ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  support. 
The  question,  after  all,  might  be,  whether  it  was 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  35 

the  design  of  the  apostles  to  establish  any  par- 
ticular form  of  church  government  any  more  than 
to  establish  a  fixed  code  of  civil  administration  ? 
The  specific  point  to  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians 
is,  That  there  is  scriptural  authority  for  that  which 
is  claimed  for  bishops.  This  is  not  a  claim  which 
can  be  defended  by  any  doubtful  passages  of 
Scripture,  or  by  any  circuitous  mode  of  argu- 
mentation. As  it  is  expected  to  affect  the  whole 
constitution  of  the  church;  to  constitute,  in  fact, 
the  peculiarity  of  its  organization ;  and  to  deter- 
mine, to  a  great  extent  at  least,  the  validity  of 
all  its  ordinances  and  its  ministry,  we  have  a 
right  to  demand  that  the  proof  should  not  be  of 
a  doubtful  character,  or  of  a  nature  which  is  not 
easily  apprehended  by  the  ordinary  readers  of  the 
New  Testament. 

It  is  a  point  of  essential  importance  in  this  con- 
troversy, that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  friends 
of  Episcopacy.  It  is  theirs  to  make  out  this 
specific  claim.  To  decide  whether  they  can  do 
so,  is  the  object  of  the  present  inquiry. 

The  claims  of  Episcopacy,  as  a  peculiar  institu- 
tion, are  stated  by  Bishop  Onderdonk,  in  the  tract 
above  referred  to,  in  the  following  words:  "Epis- 
copacy declares  that  the  Christian  ministry  was 
established  in  three  orders,  called,  ever  since  the 
apostolic  age,  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Elders  and 
Deacons;  of  which  the  highest  only  has  the  right 


36  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

to  ordain  and  confirm,  that  of  general  supervision 
in  a  diocese,  and  that  of  the  chief  administration 
of  discipline,  besides  enjoying  all  the  powers  of  the 
other  grades.  The  main  question  being  thus  con- 
cerning the  superiority  of  bishops,  and  the  rights 
of  the  next  order  being  restricted  only  so  much  as 
not  to  be  inconsistent  with  those  of  the  hisrhest,  we 
need  not  extend  our  investigation  of  Scripture  be- 
yond what  is  requisite  for  this  grand  point.  If  we 
cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of  the  episcopal 
office,  we  will  surrender  those  of  our  deacons,  and 
let  all  power  be  confined  to  the  one  office  of  pres- 
byters." P.  11.  The  same  view  of  the  main  point 
of  the  controversy  is  given  by  Hooker,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  Polity,  b.  vii.  It  will  be  seen,  there- 
fore, that  the  main  point  of  the  discussion,  in 
the  estimation  of  Episcopalians,  relates  to  bishops 
or  prelates,  and  that  the  claim  set  up  for  them  ex- 
tends to  several  points.  One  is,  the  right  of  ordina- 
tion; a  second,  that  of  confirmation;  a  third,  that 
of  general  supervision ;  a  fourth,  that  of  the  gene- 
ral administration  of  discipline.  As  all  that  is 
peculiar  to  Episcopacy  is  involved  in  these  claims, 
it  is  proposed  to  examine  them  in  order,  to  as- 
certain whether  these  important  matters  in  the 
organization  of  the  church  are  intrusted  in  the 
New  Testament  to  prelates.  If  the  claim  ill  re- 
gard to  each  of  them  cannot  be  made  out  from 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  worthless ;  for  "  no  argu- 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  37 

ment  is  worth  taking  into  account  that  has  not 
a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic 
— the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy."  These 
points  must  be  made  out  separately  by  Episco- 
palians, to  wit : — that  "  bishops"  have  the  sole 
right  of  ordination  •  that  the  rite  called  "  con- 
firmation" is  directed  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  them;  that  they  have  a  general 
supervision  of  the  churches  within  a  certain  dis- 
trict ;  and  that  the  general  administration  of  disci- 
pline is  intrusted  to  them.  If  these  are  not  made 
out,  it  will  follow,  by  the  admission  above,  and  by 
the  nature  of  the  case,  that  presbyters  have  the 
right  of  ordination ;  that  the  ministers  of  the  gospel 
are  equal  in  authority  and  rank;  and  that  the 
church,  as  organized  by  the  Saviour  and  his  apos- 
tles, was  not  episcopal  in  its  form.  "We  enter  now, 
therefore,  upon  a  particular  examination  of  each 
of  these  topics. 


38  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 


CHAPTER    III. 

EXAMINATION    OF   THE   PARTICULAR   CLAIMS    OF 
EPISCOPACY. 

Sect.  1. —  The  Exclusive   Claims  of  the  "Bishop" 
to  the  Right  of  Ordination. 

The  claim  in  regard  to  the  superiority  of  the 
"order  of  bishops"  to  that  of  presbyters  or  elders, 
rests  on  two  points : — one  is,  that  the  peculiarity 
of  the  apostolic  office  consisted  in  the  right  of 
ordination ;  and  the  other,  that,  supposing  this 
were  so,  "there  was  continued,  as  had  been  begun 
in  the  apostles,  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to 
the  elders."  Tract,  p.  16.  If  either  of  these  points 
cannot  be  made  out,  the  claim  is  invalid.  For,  if 
it  were  demonstrated  that  there  was  intrusted  to 
the  apostles  the  right  of  ordination  as  the  peculiarity 
•of  their  office,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that 
that  right  was  to  be  continued  in  the  church.  It 
might  be  a  temporary  arrangement,  a  thing  valu- 
able in  the  organization  of  the  church,  but  whose 
necessity  would  expire  when  the  church  was  fairly 
established.  Even  on  the  supposition,  therefore, 
that  the  right  had  ever  existed,  it  would  be  necessary 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  39 

to  show  from  the  New  Testament — for  no  testimony 
of  the  Fathers  will  do  here — that  the  Lord  Jesus 
meant  that  such  a  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office 
should  be  continued.  But  if  it  shall  appear  that  the 
right  of  ordination  never  was  a  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office,  but  that  the  apostles  were  called  for 
a  specific  purpose  of  a  different  kind  —  a  purpose 
which  ceased,  of  course,  when  they  died — then  it 
will  follow  thaf  all  the  claims  of  "bishops"  as  their 
"  successors,"  are  void.  It  is  proposed,  therefore, 
to  examine  the  New  Testament  with  particular  re- 
ference to  each  of  these  inquiries : — first,  whether 
the  right  of  ordination  is  represented  as  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office;  and,  secondly,  whether 
there  is  any  proof  in  the  New  Testament  that  it  was 
designed  that  they  should  have  any  "successors"  in 
their  office. 

The  question  then  is,  Has  a  bishop  the  sole 
power  of  ordaining  ?  Is  the  right  of  setting  apart 
to  the  office  of  preaching,  and  administering  the 
sacraments,  confined  in  the  New  Testament  exclu- 
sively to  this  order  of  ministers  ?  The  Episcopa- 
lian claims  that  it  is.  We  deny  it,  and  ask  him  for 
the  explicit  proof  of  a  point  so  simple  as  this,  and 
one  which  we  have  a  right  to  expect  he  will  make 
out,  with  very  great  clearness,  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures. 

The  first  proof  of  this  point  adduced  by  Episco- 
palians is,  that  the  apostles  had  the  sole  power  of 


40  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

ordaining.  This  is  a  highly  important  point  in  the 
discussion,  or,  rather,  the  very  hinge  of  the  contro- 
versy. The  argument  as  stated  in  the  tract  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  (pp.  14-16,)  rests  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  apostles  ordained.  "  That  the  apostles 
ordained,  all  agree."  Now,  if  this  means  any  thing 
to  the  purpose,  it  means  that  they  ordained  as 
apostles,  or  that  they  were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic 
office  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining.  Having  made 
this  assumption,  the  writer  adds,  that  a  distinction 
is  observed  in  the  New  Testament  between  "the 
apostles  and  elders,"  "  the  apostles  and  elders  and 
brethren."  He  next  attempts  to  show  that  this 
distinction  was  not  made  because  they  "  were  ap- 
pointed by  Christ  personally;"  nor  because  "they 
had  seen  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection  j"  nor 
"because  of  this  power  of  working  miracles;" — 
and  then  adds :  "  It  follows,  therefore,  or  will  not 
at  least  be  questioned,  that  the  apostles  were  dis- 
tinguished from  the  elders  because  they  were  supe- 
rior to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
This  is  the  argument;  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it. 
On  the  making  out  of  this  point  depends  the  stu- 
pendous fabric  of  Episcopacy.  Here  is  the  corner- 
stone on  which  rests  the  claims  of  prelates ;  this  the 
position  on  which  the  stupendous  and  mighty  super- 
structure has  been  reared. 

Now,  the  only  way  of  ascertaining  whether  this 
claim  be  well-founded,  is  to  appeal  at  once  to  the 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  41 

New  Testament.  The  question,  then,  is,  Whether 
the  apostles  were  chosen  for  the  distinctive  and  pe- 
culiar work  of  ordaining  to  sacred  offices  ?  This 
the  Episcopalian  affirms.  This  we  take  the  liberty 
of  calling  in  question. 

The  evangelists  have  given  three  separate  and 
full  accounts  of  the  appointment  of  the  apostles. 
One  is  recorded  by  Matthew,  ch.  x. ;  another  by 
Mark,  ch.  iii. ;  the  third  by  Luke,  ch.  vi.  They 
were  selected  from  the  other  disciples,  and  set 
apart  to  their  work  with  great  solemnity.  The  act 
was  performed  in  the  presence  of  a  great  multi- 
tude, and  after  the  Saviour  had  passed  the  night  in 
prayer  to  God.  Luke  vi.  12.  The  directions  given 
to  them  on  the  occasion  occupy,  in  one  part  of  the 
record,  (Matt.)  the  entire  chapter  of  forty-two  verses. 
Those  directions  are  given  with  very  great  particu- 
larity, embracing  a  great  variety  of  topics,  evidently 
intended  to  guide  them  in  all  their  ministry,  and  to 
furnish  them  with  ample  instruction  as  to  the  nature 
of  their  office.  They  refer  to  times  which  would 
follow  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  were  de- 
signed to  embrace  the  whole  period  of  their  pecu- 
liar work. 

Now,  on  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians,  that 
the  peculiarity  of  their  work  was  to  ordain,  or 
that  "  they  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  be- 
cause they  were    superior   to  them    in   ministerial 

powers  and  rights,"  it  cannot  but  be  regarded  as 

4* 


42  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

unaccountable  that  we  find  not  one  word  of  this 
here.  There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any 
such  distinguishing  "  powers  and  rights."  There 
is  nothing  which  can  be  tortured  into  any  such 
claim.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as,  on  an- 
other occasion,  he  sent  forth  seventy  disciples  at 
one  time,  (Luke  x.  1-16,)  usually  regarded  by 
Episcopalians  as  the  foundation  of  the  second  order 
of  their  ministers;  and -there  is  not  the  slightest 
intimation  given  that  they  were  to  be  inferior  to 
the  apostles  in  the  power  of  ordaining,  or  in  su- 
perintending the  churches.  What  explanation  will 
the  Episcopalian  give  of  this  remarkable  omission 
in  the  instructions  of  the  primitive  "bishops?" 

This  omission  is  not  the  less  remarkable  in  the 
instructions  which  the  Lord  Jesus  gave  to  these 
same  apostles  after  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
At  that  time  we  should  assuredly  have  expected  an 
intimation  of  the  existence  of  some  such  peculiar 
power.  But  not  the  slightest  hint  occurs  of  any 
such  exclusive  authority  and  superintendence. 
Matthew,  (xxviii.  18-20,)  Mark,  (xvi.  15-18,) 
and  Luke,  (xxiv.  47-49,)  have  each  recorded  these 
parting  instructions.  They  tell  us  that  he  directed 
them  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  until  they  were  en- 
dued with  power  from  on  high,  and  then  to  go 
forth  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature ;  but 
not  a  solitary  syllable  occurs  about  any  exclusive 
power  of  ordination ;  about  their  being  a  peculiar 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  43 

order  of  ministers ;  about  their  transmitting  the  pe- 
culiarity of  the  apostolic  office  to  others.  What  is 
the  explanation  of  this  fact  ?  How  is  it  to  be  ac- 
counted for,  if  the  peculiarity  of  their  office  con- 
sisted in  "  superiority  of  ministerial  powers  and 
rights,"  that  neither  at  their  election  and  ordina- 
tion, nor  in  the  departing  charge  of  the  Saviour, 
nor  in  any  intermediate  time,  do  we  ever  hear  of  it 
— that  even  the  advocates  for  the  powers  of  the 
"bishop"  never  pretend  to  adduce  a  solitary  expres- 
sion that  can  be  construed  into  a  reference  to  any 
such  distinction  ? 

I  proceed  now  to  observe  that  there  is  not  any- 
where else,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  statement  that 
this  was  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office.  Of 
this  any  man  may  be  satisfied  who  will  examine 
the  New  Testament.  Or  he  may  find  the  proof  in 
a  less  laborious  way  by  simply  looking  at  the  fact 
that  none  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  pretend 
to  adduce  any  such  declaration.  The  apostles  often 
speak  of  themselves;  the  historian  of  their  doings 
(Luke*)  often  mentions  them;  but  the  place  re- 
mains yet  to  be  designated,  after  this  controversy 
has  been  carried  on  by  keen-sighted  disputants  for 
several  hundred  years,  which  speaks  of  any  such 
peculiarity  of  their  office. 

This  point,  then,  I  shall  consider  as  settled,  and 

*  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 


44  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

shall  feel  at  liberty  to  make  all  the  use  of  it  to 
which  it  can  be  fairly  applied  in  the  argument. 
I  might  here  insist  on  the  strong  presumption 
thus  furnished,  that  this  settles  the  inquiry.  We 
should  be  very  apt  to  regard  it  as  decisive  in  any 
other  case.  If  two  men  go  from  a  government  to  a 
foreign  court,  and  one  of  them  claims  to  be  a  pleni- 
potentiary, and  affirms  that  the  other  is  a  mere 
private  secretary,  or  a  consul,  we  expect  that  the" 
claimant  will  sustain  his  pretensions  by  an  appeal 
to  his  commission  or  instructions.  If  he  maintains 
that  this  is  the  peculiarity  of  his  office,  we  expect 
to  find  this  clearly  stated  in  the  documents  which 
he  brings.  If  he  is  mentioned  by  no  name  that 
designates  his  office — as  the  Episcopalian  admits 
the  "  bishop"  is  not;  if  his  commission  contains  no 
such  appointment;  and  if  we  should  learn  that 
specific  instructions  were  given  to  him  at  his  ap- 
pointment, and  again  repeated  in  a  solemn  manner 
when  he  left  his  native  shores, — we  should  look 
with  strong  suspicions  on  these  remarkable  claims. 
Would  not  any  foreign  court  decide  at  once  that 
such  pretensions,  under  such  circumstances,  were 
utterly  unfounded? 

Let  us,  then,  proceed  to  inquire  whether  it  is 
possible  to  ascertain  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office;  for  it  must  be  conceded  that  there  was  some- 
thing to  distinguish  the  apostles  from  the  other 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament.     Here,  happily, 


OF   THE  APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  45 

we  are  not  left  in  the  dark.  The  sacred  writers 
themselves  have  given  an  account  which  cannot  be 
easily  mistaken,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  amazement 
that  it  ever  has  been  mistaken.  The  first  account 
which  I  adduce  is  from  the  lips  of  the  Saviour 
himself.  In  those  solemn  moments  when  he  was 
about  to  leave  the  world,  when  the  work  of  atone- 
ment was  finished,  and  when  he  gave  the  apostles 
their  final  commission,  he  indicated  the  nature  of 
their  labours  and  the  peculiarity  of  their  office  in 
these  words  : — "  And  said  unto  them,  Thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and 
to  rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day : — And  ye 
are  witnesses  of  these  things."  Luke  xxiv.  46-48. 
The  object  of  their  peculiar  appointment,  which  he 
here  specifies,  was,  that  they  should  be  witnesses 
to  all  nations.  (Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19.)  The 
u  things' '  of  which  they  were  to  bear  witness  he 
mentions  distinctly.  They  were  his  sufferings  in 
accordance  with  the  predictions  of  the  prophets : 
"  thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to 
suffer;"  and  his  resurrection  from  the  dead:  "and 
to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day."  These  were 
the  points  to  bear  "witness"  to  which  they  had 
been  selected )  and  these  were  the  points  on  which 
they,  in  fact,  insisted  in  their  ministry. 

I  would  next  remark  that  this  is  expressly  de- 
clared to  be  the  "  peculiarity"  of  the  apostolic 
office.     It  was  done  so  at  the  election  of  an  apostle 


46  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

to  fill  up  the  vacated  place  of  Judas.  Here,  if  the 
peculiar  design  had  been  to  confer  "  superiority  in 
ministerial  rights  and  powers/'  we  should  expect  to 
be  favoured  with  some  account  of  it.  It  was  the 
very  time  when  it  was  natural  and  proper  to  give  a 
statement  of  the  reason  why  they  filled  up  the  va- 
cancy in  the  college  of  apostles,  and  when  they 
actually  did  make  such  a  statement.  Their  words 
are  these  : — "  Wherefore,  of  those  men  which  have 
companied  with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
went  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  unto  that  same  day  when  he  was 
taken  up  from  us,  must  one  he  ordained  to  be  a 
witness  WITH  US  of  his  resurrect  ion."  Acts  i. 
21,  22.  This  passage  I  consider  to  be  absolutely 
decisive  on  the  point  before  us.  It  shows,  first,  for 
what  purpose  they  ordained  the  newly-elected  apos- 
tle; and,  second,  that  they  were  ordained  for  the 
same  purpose.  Why  do  we  hear  nothing  on  this 
occasion  of  their  "superiority  of  ministerial  rights 
and  powers  ?"  Why  nothing  of  their  peculiar  pre- 
rogative to  ordain  ?  Why  nothing  of  their  "  gene- 
ral superintendence"  of  the  church  ?  Plainly  be- 
cause they  had  conceived  of  nothing  of  this  kind  as 
entering  into  their  original  commission  and  the 
peculiar  design  of  their  office.  For  this  purpose  of 
bearing  testimony  to  the  world  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  Messiah,  they  had  been  originally  selected. 
For  this  they  had  been    prepared   by  a  long   and 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  47 

intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Saviour.  They  had 
seen  him;  had  been  with  him  in  various  scenes 
fitted  to  instruct  them  more  fully  in  his  designs  and 
character;  had  enjoyed  an  intimate  personal  friend- 
ship with  him,  (1  John  i.  1,)  and  they  were  thus 
qualified  to  go  forth  as  "witnesses"  of  what  they 
had  seen  and  heard;  to  confirm  the  great  doctrine 
that  the  Messiah  had  come,  had  died,  and  had 
risen,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets. 
— I  add,  here,  that  these  truths  were  of  sufficient 
importance  to  demand  the  appointment  of  twelve 
honest  men  to  give  them  confirmation.  There  was 
consummate  wisdom  in  the  appointment  of  wit- 
nesses enough  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind,  and 
yet  not  so  many  as  to  give  it  the  appearance  of 
tumult  or  popular  excitement.  The  truth  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  Christianity  rested  on  making  out 
the  fact  that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  (eomp.  1  Cor.  xv. ;)  and  the  importance  of 
that  religion  to  the  welfare  of  mankind  demanded 
that  this  should  be  substantiated  to  the  conviction 
of  the  world.  Hence  the  anxiety  of  the  eleven 
to  complete  the  number  of  the  original  witnesses 
selected  by  the  Saviour ;  and  hence  their  care  that 
the  person  chosen  should  have  the  same  acquaint- 
ance with  the  facts  which  they  had  themselves. 

It  is  worthy  also  of  remark,  that,  in  the  account 
which  the  historian  gives  of  their  labours,  this  is  the 
main  idea  which  is  presented.     Acts  ii.  32:  "This 


48  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  icit- 
nesses."  V.  32  :  "And  we  are  witnesses  of  these 
things."  X.  39—42  :  "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  all 
things  which  he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews 
and  in  Jerusalem,  whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a 
tree.  Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and 
showed  him  openly ;  not  to  all  the  people,  hut  unto 
WITNESSES  chosen  before  of  God,  even  unto  us,  who 
did  eat  and  drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the 
dead.  And  he  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the 
people,  and  to  testify — Sia/iapropatr^oc  —that  it  is 
he  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  judge  of 
quick  and  dead."  In  this  place,  also,  we  meet  with 
another  explicit  declaration  that  this  was  the  object 
of  their  original  appointment.  They  were  "  chosen" 
for  this,  and  set  apart  in  the  holy  presence  of  God 
to  this  work.  Why  do  we  not  hear  any  thing  of 
"their  superiority  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers?" 
Why  no  intimation  of  the  power  of  "  confirming," 
and  of  "  general  superintendence  ?"  I  repeat,  that 
it  is  not  possible  to  answer  these  questions  except 
on  the  supposition  that  they  did  not  regard  any  such 
powers  as  at  all  entering  into  the  peculiarity  of  their 
commission. 

Having  disposed  of  all  that  is  said  in  the  New 
Testament  of  the  original  design  of  the  appointment 
to  the  apostolic  office,  I  proceed  to  another  and 
somewhat  independent  source  of  evidence.  The 
original  number  of  the  apostles  was  twelve.     The 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  49 

design  of  their  selection  we  have  seen.  For  im- 
portant  purposes,  however,  it  pleased  God  to  add  to 
their  number  one  who  had  not  been  a  personal 
attendant  on  the  ministry  of  the  Saviour,  and  who 
was  called  to  the  apostleship  four  years  after  his 
crucifixion  and  resurrection.  Now,  this  is  a  case, 
evidently,  which  must  throw  very  important  light 
on  our  inquiries.  It  is  independent  of  the  others. 
As  he  was  not  a  personal  observer  of  the  life  arad 
death  of  Jesus,  as  he  was  not  an  original  "  witness" 
in  the  case,  we  may  expect  in  the  record  of  his 
appointment  a  full  account  of  his  "  superiority  in 
ministerial  rights  and  powers."  If  such  superiority 
entered  into  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office, 
this  was  the  very  case  where  we  should  expect  to 
find  it.  His  conversion  was  subsequent  to  the 
resurrection.  He  was  to  be  employed  extensively 
in  founding  and  organizing  churches.  He  was  to 
have  committed  to  his  apostolic  care  almost  the 
entire  pagan  world.  (Comp.  Rom.  xi.  13;  xv.  16; 
Gal.  ii.  7.)  His  very  business  was  one  that  seemed 
to  call  for  some  specific  account  of  "  superiority  in 
ministerial  rights,"  if  any  such  rights  were  involved 
in  the  apostolic  office.  How  natural  to  expect  a 
statement  of  such  rights,  and  of  an  account  of  the 
"  general  superintendence"  intrusted  to  him  as  an 
apostle !  Let  us  look,  therefore,  and  see  how  the 
case  stands.  We  have  three  distinct  accounts 
of  the   appointment   of  the    apostle    Paul   to   the 

5 


50  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

apostleship,  in  each  of  which  the  design  of  his  ap- 
pointment is  stated.  In  his  discourse  before  the 
Jews,  (Acts  xxii.  14,  15,)  he  states  the  charge 
given  to  him  by  Ananias  at  Damascus  :  "  The  God 
of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst 
know  his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One,  and  shouldst 
hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth.  For  thou  shalt  be  his 
WITNESS  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and 
heard^  Again,  in  his  speech  before  Agrippa, 
(Acts  xxvi.  16,)  Paul  repeats  the  words  addressed 
to  him  by  the  Lord  Jesus  in  his  original  commis- 
sion :  "  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  tin's  purpose, 
to  make  thee  a  minister — Oizypiryv — and  a  wit- 
ness, both  of  those  things  which  thou  hast  seen, 
and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear 
unto  thee."  Again,  in  the  account  which  is  given 
of  his  past  and  future  work,  (Acts  xxiii.  11,)  it  is 
said:  "  As  thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusalem, 
so  must  thou  bear  witness  also  at  Rome." 

This  is  the  account  which  is  given  of  the  call  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus  to  the  apostolic  office.  But  where 
is  there  a  single  syllable  of  any  "  superiority  in 
ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  as  constituting  the 
peculiarity  of  his  office  ?  We  may  respectfully  ask 
all  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  to  point  to  us  a 
shadow  of  any  such  episcopal  investment.  We 
think  their  argument  demands  it.  And  if  there 
is  no  such  account,  either  in  the  original  choice  of 
the  twelve,  or  in  the  appointment  of  Matthias,  or  in 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CIIURCH.  51 

the  selection  of  the  "  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,"  it 
is  right  to  insist  with  firmness  on  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  causes  which  operated  to  pro- 
duce the  omission  of  the  very  gist  of  their  office, 
according  to  Episcopacy.  Some  reasons  should  be 
suggested,  prudential  or  otherwise,  which  made  it 
proper  to  pass  over  the  very  vitality  of  the  original 
commission. 

But  we  have  not  done  with  the  apostle  Paul. 
He  is  too  important  a  "  witness"  for  us,  as  well  as 
for  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  appointed,  to  be 
dismissed  without  further  attention.  It  has  been 
remarked  already  that  he  was  not  a  personal  fol- 
lower of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  was  not  present  at 
his  death  and  ascension.  It  may  be  asked,  then, 
how  could  he  be  a  "  witness"  in  the  sense  and  for 
the  purposes  already  described  ?  Let  us  see  how 
this  was  provided  for.  I  transcribe  the  account 
from  his  own  statement  of  the  address  made  to  him 
by  Ananias.  Acts  xxii.  14 :  "  The  God  of  our 
fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  know 
his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One,  and  shouldst  hear 
the  words  of  his  mouth."  That  he  had  thus  seen 
him,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  8; 
Acts  ix.  5,  17.  The  inference  which  I  here  draw 
is,  that  he  was  permitted  to  see  the  Lord  Jesus  in 
an  extraordinary  manner,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
qualifying  him  to  be  invested  with  the  peculiarity 
of  the  apostleship.     This  inference,  sufficiently  clear 


52  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

from  the  very  statement,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  put 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  to  another  account  which  Paul 
has  given  of  his  call  to  the  apostleship,  1  Cor.  ix.  1, 
2  :  "Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  Am  I  not  free  ?  Have 
I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?''  I  adduce  this 
passage  as  proof  that  to  have  seen  Jesus  Christ 
was  considered  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
the  apostleship.  So  Paul  regarded  it  in  his  own 
case.  It  is  adduced  also  for  another  purpose,  viz. 
to  strengthen  my  main  position,  that  the  apostles 
were  designated  to  their  office  specifically  -  as  wit- 
nesses to  the  character  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
If  this  was  not  the  design,  why  does  Paul  appeal  to 
the  fact  that  he  had  seen  the  Saviour,  as  proof  that 
he  was  qualified  to  be  an  apostle  ?  And  we  may 
further  ask,  with  emphasis,  If  the  apostles,  as  Epis- 
copalians pretend,  did,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  pos- 
sess "superiority  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights/' 
why  did  not  Paul  once  hint  at  the  fact  in  this  pas- 
sage ?  His  express  object  was  to  vindicate  his  claim 
to  the  apostleship.  In  doing  this  he  appeals  to  that 
which  I  am  endeavouring  to  show  constituted  the 
peculiarity  of  the  office — his  being  "  witness"  to  the 
Saviour.  In  this  instance  we  have  a  circumstance 
of  which  Paley  would  make  much  in  an  argument  if 
it  fell  in  with  the  design  of  the  "  Horae  Paulinae." 
We  claim  the  privilege  of  making  as  much  of  it 
upon  the  question  whether  the  peculiarity  of  the 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  53 

apostolic  office  was  "superiority  of  ministerial  powers 
and  rights." 

I  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  state  the  design  of  the  apostleship.  It 
has  been  shown,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  the  ground 
of  the  distinction  between  the  "  apostles  and  elders," 
"the  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren,"  was  not 
that  the  former  had  superiority  of  "  ministerial 
powers  and  rights."  We  might  leave  the  argument 
here ;  for,  if  Episcopalians  cannot  make  out  this 
point  to  entire  satisfaction,  all  that  is  said  about 
successors  in  the  apostolic  office,  and  about  perpetu- 
ating the  apostleship,  must  be  nugatory  and  vain. 
But  there  is  an  independent  topic  of  remark  here, 
and  one  which  bears  on  the  subject,  therefore,  with 
all  the  force  of  a  cumulative  argument.  This  is 
stated  in  the  following  words  :  that  "  there  was  ton- 
tinued,  as  had  begun  in  the  apostles,  an  order  of 
ministers  superior  to  the  elders."  Tract,  p.  16. 
This  the  author  of  the  tract  representing  the  argu- 
ments of  Episcopalians  on  the  subject  attempts  to 
prove,  on  the  ground  that  "  there  is  no  scriptural 
evidence  that  mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained," 
(pp.  16-23,)  and  that  "the  above  distinction  be- 
tween elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them  in  regard 
especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so  per- 
severed in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  permanent 
arrangement,  and  not  designed  to  be  but  tempo- 
rary."    Pp.  23,  24. 

5* 


54  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

In  the  inquiry,  then,  whether  this  distinction  was 
continued  or  persevered  in,  we  might  insist  on  what 
has  been  already  shown  as  decisive.  If  the  original 
distinction  was  what  it  has  been  shown  to  be,  that 
the  design  of  selecting  and  appointing  the  apostles 
to  their  office  was  that  they  might  be  "  witnesses" 
of  the  life,  the  teachings,  the  death,  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  then  it 
could  not  be  persevered  in  without  (as  in  the  case 
of  Paul)  a  personal,  direct  manifestation  of  the  as- 
cended Saviour,  to  qualify  every  future  incumbent 
in  the  apostleship.  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  No  modern 
"bishop,"  it  is  presumed,  will  lay  claim  to  this. 
The  very  supposition  that  any  such  revelation  was 
necessary  would  dethrone  every  prelate  and  pros- 
trate every  mitre  in  Christendom. 

But  we  have,  as  before  remarked,  an  independent 
train  of  arguments  on  this  point.  It  is  evident  that 
the  whole  burden  of  proof  here  lies  on  the  Episco- 
palian. He  maintains  that  such  an  original  dis- 
tinction existed,  and  that  it  was  perpetuated.  Both 
these  positions  we  deny.  The  first  has  been  shown 
to  be  unfounded,  and  has  thus  virtually  destroyed 
the  other.  Let  us  proceed,  however,  to  the  com- 
paratively needless  task  of  showing  that  the  posi- 
tion, that  there  was  an  arrangement  by  which  an 
order  of  men  "  superior  to  the  elders"  was  con- 
tinued in  the  church,  is  equally  unfounded. 

The  argument  in  support  of  the  position,  that 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  55 

there  was  to  be  an  order  o?  men  of  substantially  the 
same  rank  as  the  apostles,  and  superior  to  another 
grade  of  ministers  in  the  church,  can  be  made  out 
only  by  substantiating  oue  or  both  of  the  following 
positions  :  either  (1)  that  it  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  New  Testament  that  the  "  order"  was  con- 
tinued, or  was  to  be  continued;  or  (2)  by  an  induc- 
tion of  particulars,  showing  that  though  there  was 
no  formal  statement  on  this  point,  yet  that  the 
order  was,  in  fact,  continued.  Either  of  them,  I 
admit,  would  settle  the  question  in  favour  of  Epis- 
copacy; if  both  fail,  then  it  is  equally  clear  that  the 
claim  is  unfounded.  It  is  proposed  to  examine  both 
these  points  by  the  New  Testament. 

First,  then,  there  is  no  express  statement  in  the 
New  Testament  that  such  a  "  superior  order"  of 
ministers  was  to  be  "  continued"  in  the  church,  or 
that  the  apostles  were  to  have  "  successors"  in  the 
peculiarity  of  their  office.  This  point  is  so  clear 
that  even  Episcopalians  do  not  pretend  to  affirm  it. 
There  is  nothing  to  which  they  refer  as  conveying 
this  idea.  Neither  in  the  instructions  of  the  Saviour 
himself  when  he  called  them  to  their  office,  nor  in 
any  declaration  which  fell  from  his  lips  during  his 
ministry,  nor  in  any  thing  that  the  apostles  them- 
selves said,  either  before  or  subsequent  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Saviour,  is  it  declared  that  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office  was  to  be  continued 
by  a   "  succession"  of  men  extending   into  future 


56  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

times.  This  assertion  is  made  with  entire  confi- 
dence, and  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  denied  by  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy.  The  only  declaration  in 
the  New  Testament  that  has  any  resemblance  to 
such  a  position,  or  that  is  ever  even  remotely 
referred  to  by  Episcopalians  on  this  point,  is  the 
promise  of  the  Saviour  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20  :  "  Lo, 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  But,  assuredly,  this  passage  will  not 
demonstrate  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office  was  to  be  perpetuated,  or  that  the  apostles 
were  to  have  successors  in  their  office,  or  that  there 
was  to  be  an  order  of  men  continued  in  the  church 
superior  in  rank  and  power  to  a  certain  other  order 
of  men.  It  does  not  prove  this  for  the  following 
reasons :  (1.)  There  is  no  declaration  in  this  pro- 
mise, express  or  implied,  that  the  peculiarity  of 
their  office  was  to  be  continued.  That,  certainly, 
is  not  the  point  of  the  promise,  whatever  may  be  its 
real  import.  The  point  of  the  promise  is,  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Saviour  to  the  end  of  time  with  those 
who  were  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel.  (2.)  There 
is  no  allusion  to  any  such  fact  as  that  they  were  to 
be  "superior"  to  another  order  of  men,  or  that  an 
order  of  men  superior  to  others  was  to  be  continued 
in  the  church.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  such 
"  orders"  of  men;  there  is  no  intimation  that  there 
would  be.  (3.)  .The  promise  is  one  that  is  adapted 
to  all  authorized  preachers  of  the  gospel,  whatever 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  57 

rank  or  order  they  may  sustain.  According  to  the 
Saviour's  commission,  the  promise  extends  to  all 
those  who  should  be  called  by  him  and  commis- 
sioned to  go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  It  was  to  such 
persons  (ver.  20)  that  the  promise  of  his  presence 
was  made  by  the  Saviour;  and  wherever  any  per- 
sons have  evidence  that  they  are  authorized  by  him 
to  engage  in  that  work,  they  have  a  right  to  apply 
this  promise  to  themselves.  But  is  this  work  to  be 
confined  to  prelates,  the  pretended  "  successors"  of 
the  apostles  ?  Are  no  others  authorized  to  go  and 
disciple  the  nations ;  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  and  to  teach  men  to  observe  the  command- 
ments of  God  ?  Assuredly,  this  will  not  be  pre- 
tended, for  no  Episcopalian  ever  supposed  that 
"  bishops"  only  were  authorized  to  become  mission- 
aries to  the  heathen. 

But,  if  this  text  will  not  support  the  pretensions 
to  a  "  succession"  in  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office,  which  it  neither  expresses  nor  implies,  then 
there  is  no  express  declaration  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  an  order  of  men  was  to  be  "  continued" 
in  the  ministry  "superior"  to  another  order.  And 
if  this  be  so,  we  have  here  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able facts  that  has  ever  occurred  in  the  institution 
of  any  office  whatever;  a  fact  so  remarkable  as  to 
render  it  incredible  that  it  should  ever  have  occurred. 


58  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

A  brief  glance  at  the  circumstances  of  the  case  will 
illustrate  this.     They  are  these  : 

According  to  the  belief  of  Episcopalians,  this 
"order"  of  the  ministry — to  wit,  that  of  ''bishops" 
as  the  successors  of  the  apostles, — was  to  continue 
forever.  It  was  intended  by  the  Saviour  that  at  nc 
time  should  the  church  be  without  an  order  of 
men  who  should  be  properly  the  "  successors  of  th< 
apostles." 

According  to  their  belief,  that  arrangement  was 
to  take  place  in-  all  lands  where  the  gospel  was 
preached.  No  matter  what  might  be  the  form  of 
civil  government  there  prevailing — whether  a  re- 
public, a  democracy,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  monarchy — 
there  was  to  be  but  one  form  in  which  the  church 
was  to  be  organized;  and  in  every  land  there  was  to 
be  an  order  in  the  ministry  who  should  be  properly 
the  "  successors  of  the  apostles." 

According  to  their  belief,  the  correct  organization 
of  the  whole  church  was  dependent  on  the  ob- 
servance of  the  distinction  between  this  "supe- 
rior grade"  and  an  inferior  grade  in  the  ministry; 
and  there  could  be,  in  fact,  no  properly  organized 
church  unless  there  was  an  order  of  men  who 
should  be  properly  "  the  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles." 

According  to  their  belief,  the  validity  of  all  ordi- 
nations everywhere  depended  on  this,  and  no  one 
could  be  authorized  to  preach  the   gospel  unless 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  59 

there  had  bee  a  laid  on  him  the  hands  of  those  who 
were  properly  the  "successors  of  the  apostles." 

According  to  their  belief,  the  validity  of  all  sacra- 
ments depended  on  this,  and  no  one  could  properly 
administer  the  rite  of  baptism  or  the  Lord's  supper 
unless  he  had  derived  his  authority  from  those  who 
were  properly  "  the  successors  of  the  apostles." 

According  to  their  belief,  the  proper  government 
of  the  church  everywhere  depended  on  this,  and 
none  would  have  a  right  to  administer  discipline 
except  those  who  were  properly  the  "  successors  of 
the  apostles." 

According  to  their  belief,  if  these  things  are  not 
so,  and  if  there  is  no  such  "  succession"  of  men  in 
the  church,  the  churches  are  unauthorized  assem- 
blies, without  a  valid  ministry;  with  no  sacraments 
properly  administered;  with  none  empowered  by 
the  great  Head  of  the  church  to  proclaim  salvation, 
to  offer  pardon,  to  minister  consolation,  or  to  bury 
the  dead. 

With  these  consequences  full  in  view,  we  turn, 
then,  to  the  original  commission  of  these  men  whose 
"  successors"  were  to  be  intrusted  with  so  much 
power,  and  the  continuation  of  whose  office  was  to 
involve  the  destiny  of  countless  millions  of  mankind. 
We  go  and  listen  to  the  Saviour  when  he  called 
them  on  the  banks  of  Gennesareth.  We  examine  all 
the  instructions  that  he  gave  them  in  three  years  of 
his  most  faithful  ministry.     We  listen  to  his  voice 


60  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

when  he  was  about  to  ascend  to  heaven,  and  when 
he  gave  them  his  parting  counsel  and  issued  his 
great  commission.  Strange  to  tell,  in  all  this,  not 
one  word  do  we  hear  of  any  such  tremendous  re- 
sults depending  on  the  fact  that  there  were  to  be 
those  who  should  be  "  successors"  in  the  peculiari- 
ties of  their  office,  nor  is  there  even  a  hint  that 
they  were  to  have  any  such  successors. 

We  turn  then  to  another  fact — a  fact  which  must 
have  been  before  the  eyes  of  the  Redeemer.  It  is 
the  arrangement  made  in  regard  to  the  priestly 
office  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  every  thing 
was  ordered  in  the  most  exact  manner.  There  is 
no  ambiguity.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting 
that  Moses  intended  that  the  ministry  which  he  in- 
stituted should  be  arranged  in  three  orders,  or  that 
it  was  designed  that  there  should  be  a  "  successor" 
to  the  one  of  "superior  order" — the  high-priest. 
Every  thing  relating  to  that  officer,  and  to  the 
"succession,"  is  specified  with  the  utmost  particu- 
larity, and  the  arrangement  entered  into  the  essen- 
tial structure  of  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth.  Can  any  one  believe  that  the 
Saviour  intended  that  there  should  be  similar  dis- 
tinctions in  his  church,  essential  to  its  very  exist- 
ence, and  yet  that  there  should  not  be  a  single 
word  in  regard  to  it  in  his  own  statements  of  the 
nature  of  the  ministry?  They  may  explain  this 
who  can ;  but  if  such  results  were  to  be  dependent 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  61 

on  the  fact  that  an  order  of  men  was  to  be  con- 
tinued in  the  church,  who  should  be  the  "  succes- 
sors" of  the  apostles  in  the  peculiarity  of  their  office, 
and  yet  not  one  word  of  this  ever  occurred  in  the 
account  of  its  organization,  then  the  church  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  the  most  singularly  organized  body 
that  ever  pretended  to  have  a  constitution. 

Leaving  this  matter  to  be  explained  by  Episcopa- 
lians as  it  may  be — a  work  which  remains  yet  to  be 
attempted — the  fact  is  all  that  is  of  essential  im- 
portance to  us  now.  That  fact  is,  that  there  is  no 
intimation  in  the  instructions  or  counsels  of  the 
Saviour  that  he  ever  designed  that  the  peculiarity 
of  the  apostolic  office  should  be  transmitted  to  a 
body  of  men  who  should  be  their  "  successors." 

The  second  point  of  the  inquiry,  then,  is,  Whether 
the  recorded  facts  in  the  doings  of  the  apostles 
themselves  are  such  as  to  show  that  this  was  in- 
tended? It  is  certainly  undeniable  that  it  might  be 
so.  Though  there  were  not  in  the  original  commis- 
sion of  the  apostles  themselves,  or  in  any  declaration 
of  the  Saviour,  an  express  statement  that  this  order 
of  men  was  to  be  continued  in  a  regular  "  succes- 
sion," yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  such  might 
have  been  the  organization  of  the  church  under 
them,  and  such  their  uniform  practice,  as  to  show 
that  this  regular  succession  was  contemplated,  and 
is  still  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  the  church. 
It  is  conceivable  that  in  every  case  where  a  vacancy 


62  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

occurred  in  the  apostolic  college,  they  should  forth- 
with ordain  a  "successor;"  or  that  they  should,  in 
some  sufficiently  intelligible  and  formal  way,  appoint 
men  over  others,  with  the  powers  and  functions  of 
their  own  office;  or  that,  having  ordained  certain 
men  to  the  ministry,  they  should  uniformly  address 
them  as  apostles,  and  as  invested  with  the  functions 
of  the  apostolic  office  ;  or  that,  in  every  country 
where  churches  were  organized  in  sufficient  number, 
they  should  constitute  some  one  with  the  right  of 
confirmation,  and  with  the  general  charge  of  govern- 
ing; the  churches,  and  with  instructions  to  transmit 
his  peculiar  authority  to  some  "  successor"  of  the 
same  rank.  In  either  of  these  cases  it  is  admitted 
that  there  would  be  a  sufficient  indication  that  the 
church  was  to  be  constituted  and  governed  in  this 
manner — however  we  might  explain  the  want  of 
any  such  statement  in  the  original  commission. 
The  defect  in  the  original  commission  would  be 
practically  supplied,  and  the  authority  for  the  supe- 
rior "apostolic"  order  in  the  church  could  not,  with 
propriety,  be  called  in  question.  The  advocates 
for  Episcopacy,  conceding  the  want  of  the  express 
statement  in  the  original  commission  on  this  point, 
suppose  that  they  find  evidence  of  such  an  arrange- 
ment in  the  subsequent  organization  of  the  church ; 
or  such  evidence  that  the  apostles  intended  that 
their  own  "order"  or  rank  in  the  ministry  should 
be  continued  as  to  amount  to  a  proof  that  this  was 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  Q'S 

the  intention  of  the  Saviour.  That  evidence  is 
found,  they  think,  not  in  any  express  declaration 
of  the  apostles  themselves,  but  in  such  supposed 
acts  as  to  show  that  there  was  the  same  authority 
transmitted  which  they  had,  as  apo  ties,  and  that 
this  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement.  The  evi- 
dence consists  in  the  alleged  fact  that  certain  indi- 
viduals are  mentioned  with  such  appellations,  and 
designated  to  perform  such  offices,  as  to  show  that 
they  belonged  to  an  order  of  the  clergy  "  superior" 
to  the  presbyters,  and  were  iu  the  same  rank  as  the 
apostles.  To  examine  this  claim,  therefore,  is  essen- 
tial to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  subject,  and 
this  examination  will  settle  the  question.  This 
must  be  done  by  an  investigation  of  the  cases  of 
the  particular  individuals  who  are  claimed  to  be 
the  successors  of  the  apostles.  It  is  proposed  to 
take  up  these  cases  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
usually  presented  by  Episcopalians,  and  to  inquire, 
What  is  the  evidence  that  they  succeeded  the  apostles 
in  €ie  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office,  so  as  to  show 
that  it  was  intended  that  this  should  he  a  permanent 
arrangement  in  the  church? 

The  first  case  is  that  of  Matthias,  Acts  i.  15-26. 
The  argument  which  is  relied  on  in  his  case  is,  that 
one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  apostles,  after  they  re- 
ceived the  apostolic  office,  was  to  ''transfer  the  very 
same  power  which  they  had  received  from  Christ;" 
(Bishop  McCoskry;)  and  that  Matthias  was  so  se- 


64  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

lected,  and  such  power  conferred  on  him,  as  to 
prove  that  he  was  to  be  ranked  among  the  apostles, 
and  to  indicate  that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent 
arrangement.  It  is  supposed  to  be  the  first  step  in 
the  doings  of  the  apostles,  indicating  that  their 
order  was  to  be  continued  in  the  churches,  and  that 
it  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  become  extinct  by  the 
death  of  those  sustaining  the  office. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  case  of  Matthias,  the  follow- 
ing remarks  will  show  the  bearing  of  this  example 
on  the  argument : 

1.  He  was  undoubtedly  chosen  to  be  an  apostle 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  This  is  implied 
in  the  whole  transaction,  and  is,  indeed,  expressly 
affirmed.  Peter  states,  in  his  argument  for  going 
into  the  election,  that  one  of  their  number  had  com- 
mitted suicide,  and  that  it  was  proper  that  his  place 
should  be  supplied  by  an  election.  The  propriety 
of  this  he  argues  by  a  quotation  from  Psalm  lxix. 
25  :  "  Let  his  habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no 
mand  well  therein ;  and  his  bishopric  let  another 
take ;"  that  is,  let  his  office,  or  charge — htiaxoi&p 
— be  conferred  on  another.  The  word  is  applied  to 
any  oversight  or  care  of  a  thing,  and  in  the  New 
Testament  refers  to  having  the  care  or  oversight  of 
the  church,  without  reference  to  any  particular 
rank  in  doing  it.  See  Acts  xx.  28,  and  Phil.  i.  1, 
where  it  is  applied  to  presbyters.  On  the  ground 
of  this  ancient  prediction,  Peter  argued  that  it  was 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  65 

necessary  and  proper  to  elect  one  with  suitable 
qualifications  to  fill  the  office  with  which  Judas 
had  been  invested,  or  to  accomplish  what  he  was 
chosen  to  accomplish  as  an  apostle.  That  it  was 
understood  that  he  was  to  be  an  apostle,  with  the 
rank,  title,  and  prerogatives  of  an  apostle,  is  clear. 
He  was  to  be  in  the  office  what  Judas  would  have 
been,  if  he  had  not,  by  transgression,  fallen.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  expressly  stated  that  "  he  was  num- 
bered with  the  eleven  apostles,"  (Acts  i.  26,)  and 
the  apostles  are  twice  referred  to  afterwards,  in 
their  collective  capacity,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
lead  to  the  supposition  that  Matthias  was  with 
them.  Thus  it  is  said,  (Acts  ii.  14,)  "  But  Peter 
standing  up  with  the  eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice;" 
and  in  Acts  vi.  2,  "  Then  the  twelve  called  the 
multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,"  implying 
that  at  that  time  Matthias  was  recognised  as  one  of 
the  number  of  the  apostles,  or  that  the  apostolic 
college  was  full. 

2.  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  all  this  was  done 
under  the  full  influence  of  inspiration,  and  by  the 
sanction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  true  that  the 
presence  of  the  other  ten  apostles  on  the  occasion 
is  not  mentioned ;  that  the  question  was  submitted, 
not  particularly  to  them,  but  to  the  whole  of  the 
assembled  church,  (Acts  i.  15 ;)  that  probably  the 
whole  church  acted  in  the  selection  of  the  successor 
of  Judas,  and  voted  on  the  occasion,  (see  Acts  i.  15, 

6* 


66  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

coinp.  vs.  23,  26;)  and  that  Peter  seems  to  have 
been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  such  an  election  was 
proper  by  a  course  of  reasoning  on  the  declaration 
in  the  lxixth  Psalm;  but  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  he  acted  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the 
Great  Head  of  the  church,  and  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Grhost.  This  would  seem  to  be  fairly 
implied  in  the  general  promises  which  the  Re- 
deemer made  to  the  apostles  in  regard  to  the 
organization  of  the  church.  John  xiv.  26;  Matt, 
xvi.  19 ;  xviii.  18.  Whatever  inferences  may  fol- 
low from  this  fact,  the  fact  itself  should  be  cheer- 
fully conceded. 

But,  if  these  points  are  conceded,  the  question 
then  is,  What  is  the  exact  bearing  of  this  case  on 
the  question,  whether  it  was  intended  that  the  ar- 
rangement should  be  "  permanent"  in  the  church, 
and  that  there  should  be  a  regular  "succession" 
of  men  invested  with  the  functions  of  those  who 
sustained  the  apostolic  office  ?  It  is  important, 
then,  to  look  at  this  case  just  as  it  is  presented 
in  the  New  Testament;  and  the  following  facts, 
which  no  one  will  dispute,  comprise  all  that  is 
said  in  regard  to  it,  and  embrace  all  that  can  be 
construed  into  an  argument  in  regard  to  the  suc- 
cession. 

(1.)  It  was  an  election  to  a  vacancy,  not  to  a 
succession  in  the  office.  The  reason  which  Peter 
gives  for  the  election  at  all  is  that  it  was  proper 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  67 

because  a  vacancy  had  occurred  by  the  death  of 
Judas,  not  because  it  was  necessary  to  keep  up  the 
"  succession."  One  had  been  removed  who  had 
been  chosen  to  fill  a  specific  place  and  to  accom- 
plish a  particular  object,  and  it  was  important  that 
his  place  should  be  filled.  If  it  were  possible  to 
perpetuate  the  apostolic  office  in  its  peculiarity — as 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  not — this  reasoning  of  Peter 
would  be  forcible  to  demonstrate  that  the  number 
twelve  was  to  be  continued,  and  that  when  a  va- 
cancy occurred,  it  was  to  be  supplied  by  election; 
but  it  is  of  no  force  whatever  to  demonstrate  that 
there  must  be  a  "succession"  of  an  unlimited  num- 
ber, and  that  the  office  was  to  be  transmitted  by 
embracing  hundreds  or  thousands  in  the  "apostolic 
college"  in  every  successive  age.  The  argument 
of  Peter  is,  that  Judas  was  "  numbered  with  them, 
and  had  obtained  part  in  the  same  ministry"  with 
them ;  that  he  had  fallen  from  this  office,  and  that 
it  was  predicted  that  another  should  take  "  his" 
place;  and  that,  such  being  the  case,  it  was  proper 
Jo  appoint  another,  having  the  proper  qualifications, 
who  might  be,  as  Judas  would  have  been  had  he 
lived,  a  "  witness  of  the  resurrection"  of  the  Sa- 
viour. In  all  this  there  is  not  one  word  about  a 
"succession;"  not  an  intimation  that  it  was  to  be 
a  permanent  arrangement;  not  a  hint  that  the  ori- 
ginal number  was  ever  to  be  enlarged  or  to  have 
any  other  qualifications  than  the  original   apostles 


68  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

had — the  qualifications  which  made  them  competent 
to  bear  witness  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour. 
There  is  all  the  difference  imaginable  between  the 
power  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  an  office,  and  a  power  to 
perpetuate  an  ORDER  of  men — and  especially  if  that 
"order''  is  to  be  indefinitely  enlarged. 

(2.)  It  was  an  election  by  the  church,  and  not 
particularly  by  the  apostles.  Indeed,  it  is  only  from 
the  probability  that  the  apostles  icould  be  present  on 
such  an  occasion  that  there  is  any  reason  to  believe 
that  they  were  there,  for  they  are  not  mentioned. 
The  address  of  Peter  was  made  to  the  "  disciples," 
who  are  said  to  have  been  "about  a  hundred  and 
twenty,"  (Acts  i.  15;)  and  it  is  manifest  from  the 
narrative  that  the  votes  in  the  case  were  given  by 
them.  No  intimation  is  furnished  that  any  others 
voted  than  those  before  whom  the  proposition  of 
Peter  was  made  j  and  it  is  morally  certain  that  if 
the  vote  had  been  given  only  by  the  apostles,  such 
a  fact  would  have  been  stated.  This  account  shows 
that  the  apostles  did  not  mean  of  themselves  to  ap- 
point successors;  but,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  shows  that 
the  selection  was  made  by  the  body  of  the  commu- 
nicants in  the  church.  If  they  had  been  intrusted 
with  a  special  commission  to  continue  their  "  pecu- 
liar order,"  and  to  "  transfer  their  authority,"  as  a 
permanent  arrangement,  it  is  scarcely  credible  that 
the  execution  of  this  should  have  been  left  to  the 
body   of  communicants.      At  all   events,   this   has 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  69 

much  more  of  a  democratic  aspect  than  is  found 
now  in  Episcopacy.  In  the  whole  of  the  speech  of 
Peter,  he  never  breathes  a  note  of  either  himself  or 
his  fellow-apostles  conferring  apostolic  power  on 
Matthias,  or  on  any  one  else.  He  submitted  the 
nomination  in  the  most  anti-Episcopal  manner  to 
the  whole  of  the  disciples,  and  then  referred  the 
final  decision  to  the  Lord.  "They  appointed  two, 
Joseph,  called  Barsabas,  who  was  surnamed  Justus, 
and  Matthias."  The  fair  and  obvious  construction 
of  this  is,  that  it  was  done  by  the  "  hundred  and 
twenty  disciples"  to  whom  Peter  had  submitted  the 
proposition  respecting  the  necessity  of  electing  one 
to  fill  the  vacancy. 

(3.)  The  purpose  for  which  Matthias  was  chosen 
is  specifically  mentioned.  It  was  that  he  might  be, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  as  explained  above, 
an  apostle — a  "witness"  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Saviour.  "  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have 
companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
went  in  and  out  among  us — must  one  he  ordained 
TO  be  A  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection/'  (ver. 
21,  22.)  Here  the  same  object  is  referred  to  which 
is  specified  by  the  Saviour  as  implied  in  the  nature 
of  the  apostolic  office — to  be  his  witnesses  to  the 
world.  In  order  to  divest  this  of  all  doubt  as  to 
what  was  intended  in  the  case,  Peter  specifies  all 
the  qualifications  which  were  necessary  in  the  elec- 
tion.    He  who  was  to  be  chosen  was  to  have  just 


70  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

such  qualifications  as  to  fit  him  to  be  a  competent 
"witness"  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  In 
order  to  that,  it  was  indispensable  that  he  should 
have  been  with  him;  that  he  should  have  been 
familiar  with  his  person  and  his  instructions,  that 
he  might  thus  be  qualified  to  bear  witness  to  his 
identity  after  his  resurrection.  Accordingly,  Peter 
says  that  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have  been 
with  them  "  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  them,  beginning  from  the  baptism 
of  John  unto  that  same  day  when  he  was  taken  up 
from  them,"  (ver.  21,  22 ;)  thus  embracing  the  en- 
tire period  of  his  public  ministry,  his  crucifixion, 
and  the  forty  days  in  which  he  appeared  to  his  dis- 
ciples after  his  resurrection.  It  was  to  bear  witness 
to  these  things,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  apostles 
were  originally  chosen ;  and  it  was  for  this  specific 
purpose  that  Matthias  was  selected  in  the  room  of 
one  who  would  have  been  abundantly  qualified  for 
this  had  he  lived.  In  all  that  Peter  says  on  this 
subject,  there  is  not  an  intimation  of  the  necessity 
of  any  other  qualification  than  this;  there  is  no 
hint  that  he  ought  to  be  endowed  with  uncommon 
talents,  eloquence,  or  learning;  there  is  no  allusion 
to  any  power,  control,  or  jurisdiction  that  he  was  to 
exercise  over  the  churches ;  there  is  no  suggestion 
that  he  was  to  perform  the  ceremony  of  "  confirma- 
tion/ '  or  that  he  was  to  take  the  jurisdiction  over  a 
particular  district  or  "diocese;"   nor  is  there  any 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  71 

allusion  to  any  such  fact  as  that  he  was  to  transmit 
his  power  and  authority  to  "  successors."  The  pur- 
pose was  specific;  it  was  just  that  for  which  all  the 
apostles  had  been  called  by  the  Saviour. 

These  are  the  simple  facts  in  regard  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Matthias.  It  is  to  be  remembered  now  that 
this  is  the  only  case  of  an  election  to  the  apostolic 
office  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only 
other  apostle,  respecting  whose  authority  and  rank 
there  is  no  dispute,  was  Paul.  He  was  called  di- 
rectly from  heaven,  without  any  arrangement,  elec- 
tion, designation,  or  ordination  by  the  other  apos- 
tles ',  and  he  was  qualified  for  the  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office  by  having  been  permitted,  in  a  mi- 
raculous manner,  to  see  the  Saviour  after  his  resur- 
rection. "Am  I  not  an  apostle?  Have  I  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?"  1  Cor.  ix.  1.  When 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  was  put  to  death  by 
Herod,  (Acts  xii.  1,)  there  was  no  election  to  supply 
his  place,  nor  is  there  any  mention  that  as  the 
apostles  died  their  places  were  supplied.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  original  appointment  of  twelve — a  com- 
petent number  to  establish  the  important  truth  of 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus — had  been  accomplished 
when  they  died;  and  it  was  alike  useless  and  impos- 
sible to  continue  the  succession — useless  because 
the  twelve  had  testified  to  the  world  the  fact  of  his 
resurrection  in  such  a  manner  as  to  secure  the  per- 
manent establishment  of  the  Christian  religion ;  and 


72  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

impossible  because  the  original  witnesses  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  Redeemer  died.  How  could 
an  order  of  men  be  kept  up  in  the  world  from  age 
to  age,  qualified  to  be  "witnesses"  of  his  resurrec- 
tion ? — It  is  left,  then,  to  the  judgment  of  all  to 
determine  with  what  propriety  the  case  of  Matthias 
is  referred  to  as  an  evidence  that  it  was  designed 
that  there  should  be  a  permanent  arrangement  in 
the  church  to  perpetuate  the  apostolic  office,  or  to 
continue  the  appointment  of  an  order  of  men  of 
"  superior  qualifications  and  rank"  in  the  ministry. 
If  the  very  first  link  fails,  all  the  others  will  be 
likely  to  fail  also. 

The  next  case  on  which  reliance  is  placed  by  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy  is,  that  of  Barnabas.  The 
argument  in  support  of  his  claims  to  the  apostleship 
is  based  mainly  on  the  fact  that  the  name  apostle  is 
given  to  him.  Acts  xiv.  14:  "Which  when  the 
apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,  they  rent 
their  clothes."  See  the  tract  "Episcopacy  tested 
by  Scripture,"  p.  18,  and  Bishop  McCoskry's  Ser- 
mon, p.  24.  In  connection  with  the  fact  that  the 
name  apostle  is  given  to  Barnabas,  it  is  urged  by 
the  author  of  the  tract  that  the  transaction  re- 
corded in  Acts  xiii.,  by  which  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  designated  to  a  particular  work,  and  in  the 
performance  of  which  they  are  called  "apostles," 
was  not  an  "ordination"  in  the  peculiar  sense  of  the 
word,  but  a  mere  designation  to  a  special  missionary 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  73 

service;  and  that,  as  the  term  "apostle"  belonged 
of  right  to  Paul  before  this,  so  it  is  to  be  inferred 
that  the  same  designation  belonged  to  Barnabas, 
and  to  each  of  the  others  who  were  there  named — 
"  Simeon,  and  Niger,  and  Lucius,  and  Manaen." 
Tract,  pp.  16,  17.  The  argument  is,  that  if  this 
were  not  an  "ordination,"  the  name  "apostle"  was 
not  given  to  them  in  virtue  of  this  transaction,  but 
must  have  appertained  to  them  before. 

As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  anff  as  it 
is  an  argument  much  insisted  on  by  Episcopalians, 
that  because  the  name  apostle  is  given  to  certain 
men  in  the  New  Testament,  therefore  they  were  of 
a  grade  superior  in  rank  to  other  "  clergy,"  and 
that  the  "order"  was  designed  to  be  perpetuated, 
it  is  important  first  to  examine  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "apostle,"  and  then  to  inquire  in  what  sense 
it  is  applied  to  Barnabas.  The  word  irx&eroXoq — 
apostle,  meaning  one  sent  forth ,  a  messenger — occurs 
in  the  New  Testament  eighty-one  times.  It  is  ap- 
plied to  the  following  persons: — (1.)  To  the  Saviour 
himself,  as  sent  from  God — the  Great  Apostle  to 
the  world.  Heb.  iii.  1.  Compare  here  the  nume- 
rous places  where  the  Saviour  says  he  was  "  sent" 
from  God  into  the  world.  (2.)  To  the  original 
number  whom  the  Saviour  chose  to  be  his  apostles 
to  the  world.  Matt.'  x.  2 ;  Mark  vi.  30 ;  Luke  vi. 
13;  ix.  10;  xi.  49;  xvii.  5;  xxii.  14;  xxiv.  10; 
Acts  i.  2,  26;  ii.  37,  42,  43;   iv.  33,  35-37;  v.  2, 

7 


74  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

12,  18,  29,  34,  40;  vi.  6;  viii.  1,  14,  18;  ix.  27 
xi.  1;  xiv.  4;  xv.  2,  4,  6,  22,  23,  33;  xvi.  4 
Rom.  xvi.  7;  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  29;  xv.  7;  Gal.  i.  17 
19;  Eph.  ii.  20;  iii.  5j  iv.  11;  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  11 
2  Pet.  i.  1;  ii.  1 ;  iii.  2;  Jude  17;  Rev.  xviii.  20 
xxi.  14.  (3.)  To  Paul,  reckoned  as  an  apostle,  and 
especially  endowed  for  this  purpose  by  having  had  a 
miraculous  view  of  the  Saviour  after  his  ascension. 
Acts  xiv.  14;  Rom.  i.  1;  xi.  13;  1  Cor.  i.  1;  ix. 
1,  2;  xv.  9;  2  Cor.  i.  1;  xii.  12;  Gal.  i.  1;  Eph. 
i.  1;  Col.  i.  1;  1  Tim.  i.  1;  ii.  7;  2  Tim.  i.  1, 11; 
Titus  i.  1.  (4.)  To  Barnabas  in  one  instance  only: 
Acts  xiv.  14.  (5.)  To  certain  "brethren"  who 
accompanied  Titus  when  he  was  sent  by  Paul  to 
Corinth,  and  who  are  called  "the  messengers  of  the 
churches" — axoc-oXoi  t/./.X^mcuv — the  aj)ostles  of  the 
churches.  The  number  and  names  of  these  persons 
are  imknown,  but  the  only  rank  which  they  sus- 
tained was  that  of  being  sent  from  one  church  to 
another.  2  Cor.  viii.  23.  (6.)  In  a  similar  sense  it 
is  applied  in  Phil.  ii.  25,  to  Epaphroditus,  sent  by 
the  church  at  Philippi  to  Rome,  to  supply  the 
wants  of  Paul  when  a  prisoner  there.  (7.)  It  is 
applied  to  any  one  who  is  sent  to  perform  any  office 
whatever.  "The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his 
Lord ;  neither  is  he  that  is  sent  (oud£  a-oaroXoq — 
neither  the  apostle)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him." 
John  xiii.  16. 

These  passages  show  the  sense  in  which  the  word 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  75 

is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  true  force  of 
any  argument  that  may  be  derived  from  its  use.  It 
means  properly  one  who  is  sent,  and  may  be  used 
with  reference  to  one  who  is  sent  for  any  purpose, 
and  may  be  applied,  therefore,  to  any  minister  of 
religion,  or  to  any  one  sent  for  a  specific  object,  who 
is  not  even  a  minister  of  religion.  The  mere  use 
of  the  word,  therefore,  proves  nothing  in  respect  to 
the  matter  under  consideration.  The  argument 
relied  on  by  the  Episcopalian  is,  that  the  fact  that 
the  word  is  applied  to  an  individual  proves  that  he 
was  an  apostle  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense.  But, 
in  order  to  the  validity  of  this  argument,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  believe  that  the  word  is  used  in  no  other 
sense  in  the  New  Testament;  and  this  would  prove, 
not  only  that  Barnabas  was  an  apostle  properly  so 
called,  but  that  Epaphroditus  was,  and  that  all  the 
messengers  whom  Paul  sent  with  Titus  were;  and 
that  any  one  who  was  ever  sent  for  any  purpose  was 
called  an  "apostle"  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense. 
If  the  Episcopalians,  therefore,  insist  on  it  that  the 
fact  that  the  name  "apostle"  was  given  to  Barnabas 
or  Silas  proves  that  they  were  apostles,  and  that  the 
"order"  was  intended  to  be  "continued,"  then  we 
insist  on  it  that  the  church  at  Philippi  sent  a  pre- 
latical  bishop — Epaphroditus — to  "minister  to  the 
wants  of  Paul,"  and  that  Paul  sent  a  whole  com- 
pany of  "apostles,"  or  prelatical  bishops,  on  a  gene- 
ral exploring  tour  chrough  Greece,  or  more  likely 


76  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

on  a  visit  to  a  particular  church  there.  2  Cor.  viii. 
23.  But,  as  this  consequence  will  not  be  conceded 
by  Episcopalians,  it  follows  that  the  argument  on 
which  they  rely,  derived  from  the  fact  that  the 
name  "  apostle"  is  given  to  Barnabas,  is  worthless. 
In  fact,  it  is  known  to  be  worthless  by  Episcopa- 
lians themselves.  Dr.  Onderdonk  himself  practically 
concedes  it  in  the  following  judicious  observation, 
Tract,  p.  13: — "A  little  reflection  and  'practice  will 
enable  any  of  our  readers  to  look  in  Scripture  for 
the  several  sacred  OFFICES,  independently  of  the 
names  there  or  elsewhere  given  to  them."  The 
truth  is,  in  regard  to  this  word,  and  to  all  others, 
that  the  specific  sense  in  which  it  is  used  is  to 
be  determined  by  the  connection  and  the  circum- 
stances. 

Let  us,  then,  inquire  in  regard  to  the  case  of 
Barnabas,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  con- 
nection and  circumstances  where  the  term  is  ap- 
plied to  him,  which  shows  that  he  was  an  apostle 
in  the  strict  and  proper  sense,  or  that  it  was 
intended  that  the  "order"  should  be  perpetuated 
through  him. 

The  only  instance  in  which  the  word  apostle  is 
applied  to  Barnabas,  as  has  already  been  remarked, 
is  in  Acts  xiv.  14 : — "  Which  when  the  apostles 
Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,  they  rent  their 
clothes."  Now,  to  see  the  fair  and  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  as  here  applied  to  Barnabas,  we 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  77 

may  advert  to  the  following  considerations : — (1.) 
There  is  no  account  that  Barnabas  was  ever  elected, 
ordained,  or  appointed,  in  any  way,  to  the  apostolic 
office.  There  is  a  particular  account  of  the  election 
of  Matthias,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  Paul  was 
selected  and  set  apart  to  be  an  apostle;  but  there  is 
no  intimation  that  Barnabas  was  ever  chosen  in  any 
manner  for  that  office.  (2.)  Barnabas  is  repeatedly 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  no  other 
instance  as  an  apostle.  He  first  appears  in  Acts 
iv.  36,  where  it  is  said  that  he  came  with  other 
converts  having  property  and  laid  it  at  the  apostles' 
feet.  He  is  then  mentioned  (Acts  xi.  22)  as  hav- 
ing been  sent  by  the  "church  in  Jerusalem"  to 
Antioch,  on  occasion  of  a  revival  of  religion  there, 
and  an  account  of  his  success  as  a  preacher  is  there 
given.  He  is  then  referred  to  as  having  voluntarily 
gone  to  seek  the  apostle  Paul  at  Tarsus,  to  induce 
him  to  come  to  Antioch.  At  this  time,  Paul  and 
Barnabas  laboured  together  a  whole  year  at  Antioch, 
but  there  is  no  intimation  that  he  was  ordained  to 
the  apostleship.  Acts  xi.  26.  He  is  then  mentioned 
as  going  up  to  Jerusalem  with  Paul  in  a  time  of 
famine  to  carry  to  afflicted  Christians  there  the 
benefactions  of  the  church  at  Antioch.  Acts  xi.  30. 
In  Acts  xii.  25,  it  is  said  that,  having  accomplished 
this,  Barnabas  and  Saul  returned  from  Jerusalem 
to  Antioch,  taking  with  them  John  Mark.  Subse- 
quently,   Barnabas    and   Paul    are    mentioned   as 

7* 


78  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

travelling  companions,  and  Barnabas  is  not  adverted 
to  except  in  connection  with  Paul.  Acts  xiii.  1,  2, 
50;  xiv.  12;  xv.  2,  12,  37;  1  Cor.  ix.  6;  Gal.  ii. 
1,  9,  13 ;  Col.  iv.  10.  In  all  this,  however,  there 
is  no  intimation  that  he  was  ever  selected  and  or- 
dained to  the  apostolic  office.  In  the  numerous  in- 
stances in  which  he  is  mentioned,  the  name  apostle 
is  never  given  to  him  but  once.  (3.)  The  reason 
why  the  name  was  given  to  him  on  that  occasion,  it 
is  not  difficult  to  understand.  It  was  not  because 
he  was  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term  an  "  apostle," 
but  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Epaphroditus  was 
the  "apostle"  of  the  church  at  Philippi,  (Phil, 
ii.  25,)  and  as  the  "brethren"  sent  with  Titus 
were  the  "apostles"  of  the  churches,  (2  Cor.  viii. 
23 ;)  that  is,  they  were  the  messengers  of  the 
churches.  We  find  the  following  account  of  an 
important  transaction  in  relation  to  Barnabas  before 
this  name  is  given  to  him  at  all.  In  the  church  at 
Antioch  there  were  "certain  prophets  and  teachers, 
as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  and  Lucius,  and  Manaen, 
and  Saul."  The  rank  which  they  together  sus- 
tained was  that  of  "prophets  and  teachers;"  and 
the  only  title  which  appears  to  have  been  conferred 
on  Barnabas  was  that  of  a  "prophet  and  teacher." 
That  also  appertained  to  Paul,  though  from  many 
other  places  we  also  know  that  before  this  he  was 
entitled  to  the  proper  name  of  an  apostle.  As  these 
"prophets  and  teachers"  ministered   to  the  Lord 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  79 

and  fasted,  "the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereto  I  have 
called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and 
prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent 
them  away.  So  they,  being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  departed  unto  Seleucia."  Acts  xiii.  1-5. 
Now,  two  things  are  manifest  in  this  account.  The 
first  is,  that  this  was  not  an  ordination  to  the  ajios- 
tolic  office.  This  is  perfectly  apparent  from  the 
face  of  the  transaction,  for  (cr)  Paul  was  an  apostle 
before;  (&)  the  persons  engaged  in  the  ordination, 
if  it  were  an  ordination,  were  not  themselves  apos- 
tles ;  (c)  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  set  apart 
is  particularly  specified,  and  that  is  a  distinct  design 
from  the  apostolic  office.  Indeed,  so  clear  is  this, 
that  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  admitted  that  this  was  not 
an  ordination  at  all.  Tract,  pp.  16,  17:  "If  it 
was  not  an  ordination,"  says  he,  "as  it  certainly 
was  not,  it  was  a  mere  setting  apart  of  those  two 
apostles  (?)  to  a  particular  field  of  duty/'  "That 
this  transaction  at  Antioch  related  only  to  a  special 
missionary  'work/  will  be  found  sufficiently  clear 
by  those  who  will  trace  the  progress  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  through  that  work  from  Acts  xiii.  4,  to 
xiv.  26,  where  its  completion  is  recorded."  "  This 
call,  therefore,  this  separation,  this  work,  related 
only  to  a  particular  mission,  and  this  laying  on  of 
hands  was  no  ordination."  The  second  thing  appa- 
rent from  this  account  is,  that  this  setting  apart  to  a 


80  ORGANIZATION  AND   GOVERNMENT 

particular  work  laid  the  foundation  for  the  ap- 
propriate designation  of  Barnabas  and  Paul  as 
"apostles/'  in  the  sease  that  they  were  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches.  They  were  designated 
to  a  particular  "missionary  work."  They  were 
"sent  forth"  to  accomplish  this.  They  are  de- 
signated as  thus  sent  forth,  or  as  apostles  or 
messengers  of  the  church,  by  the  inspired  his- 
torian, (comp.  Phil.  ii.  25;  2  Cor.  viii.  23,)  and  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  are  met  by  this  sup- 
position. (4.)  This  view  is  confirmed  by  a  fact 
which  can  be  explained  on  no  other  supposition, 
that  the  name  apostle  is  never  given  to  Barnabas 
subsequent  to  his  fulfilling  this  missionary  appoint- 
ment with  the  apostle  Paul.  He  is  repeatedly 
mentioned  after  this,  but  in  no  case  as  an  apostle. 
No  instance  is  referred  to  of  his  performing  any 
other  functions  than  those  of  a  travelling  companion 
of  the  apostle  Paul  as  a  preacher  and  a  beloved 
brother;  nor  is  there  an  intimation  that  he  sus- 
tained any  other  "rank,"  or  belonged  to  any  other 
"order"  than  that  which  appertained  to  all  who 
were  preachers  of  the  gospel.  With  what  pro- 
priety, then,  is  he  pressed  into  the  service  of  Epis- 
copacy ?  And  what  must  be  the  real  strength  of 
that  cause  which  is  constrained  to  rely  on  such  an 
instance  to  prove  that  there  was  such  "an  arrange- 
ment persevered  in  as  to  prove  that  the  apostolic 


I 

OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  81 

order  was  to  be  permanent' '  in  the  church  to  the 
end  of  the  world  ? 

The  next  case  relied  on  by  Episcopalians  is 
"  James,  the  brother  of  onr  Lord."  Tract,  p.  15. 
"  James,  the  Lord's  brother,"  is  once  mentioned  as 
an  apostle.  Gal.  i.  19.  But  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  there  were  two  of  the  name  of  James 
among  the  apostles,  in  the  specific  sense  of  the 
term,  viz.  James  the  brother  of  John  and  son  of 
Zebedee,  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus.  Matt.  x. 
3 ;  Luke  vi.  15.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that- 
the  word  brother  was  used  by  the  Hebrews  to  de- 
note a  relation  more  remote  than  that  which  is 
designated  by  the  ordinary  use  of  the  word  among 
us,  and  that  Alpheus  was  probably  a  connection  of 
the  family  of  our  Lord.  What  proof,  •  then,  is 
there  that  he  was  not  referred  to  in  the  passage 
before  us  ? 

Silvanus  and  Timothy  are  the  next  mentioned. 
As  their  claim  to  be  considered  apostles  rests  on 
the  same  foundation,  so  far  as  the  name  is  any 
evidence,  these  cases  will  be  disposed  of  by  con- 
sidering that  of  Timothy  at  length  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  the  argument. 

The  other  cases  are  those  of  Andronicus  and 
Junia.  The  foundation  for  their  claim  to  be  en- 
rolled as  apostles  is  the  following  mention  of  them 
by  Paul,  Rom.  xvi.  7  : — "  Salute  Andronicus  and 
Junia,  my  kinsmen,  who  are  of  note  among  the 


82  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

apostles,"  olrtviq  eiffiv  tTtitnijfwi  £v  roTq  arzoGroXots. 
On  this  claim  I  remark  :  (1.)  Admitting  that  they 
are  here  called  apostles,  the  name,  as  has  been 
proved,  does  not  imply  that  they  had  any  "  supe- 
riority of  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  They 
might  have  been  distinguished  as  messengers,  like 
Epaphroditus.  (2.)  It  is  clear  that  Paul  did  not 
mean  to  give  them  the  name  of  aj^ostles  at  all.  If 
he  had  designed  it,  the  phraseology  would  have 
been  different.  Compare  Rom.  i.  1  -,  1  Cor.  i.  1 ; 
2  Cor.  i.  1  j  Phil.  i.  1.  (3.)  All  that  the  expres- 
sion fairly  implies  is,  that  they,  having  been  early 
converted,  (Rom.  xvi.  7,)  and  being  acquainted 
with  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  were  held  in  high 
esteem  by  them;  that  is,  the  apostles  regarded  them 
with  confidence  and  affection. 

The  next  point  of  proof,  "that  the  distinction 
between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,  in 
regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so 
persevered  in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  permanent 
arrangement," — and  a  point  much  insisted  on  by 
Episcopalians, — is  drawn  from  the  charge  given  by 
the  apostle  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus.  Acts  xx. 
28-35.  The  point  of  this  evidence  is  this  :  Paul 
charges  the  elders  at  Ephesus  to  "take  heed  to 
themselves," — "  to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers — 
to  feed  the  church  of  God — to  watch  against  the 
grievous  wolves  that  would  assail  the  flock/'  etc. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  83 

In  all  this,  we  are  told,  there  is  not  a  word  respect- 
ing the  power  of  ordaining,  nor  any  thing  which 
shows  that  they  had  the  power  of  clerical  discipline 
"  No  power  is  intimated  to  depose  from  office  one 
of  their  own  number,  or  an  unsound  minister 
coming  among  them."  They  are  to  "  tend"  or 
"rule"  the  flock  as  shepherds;  "  for  shepherds  do 
not  tend  and  rule  shepherds." 

This  is  affirmed  to  be  the  sole  power  of  these 
elders.  In  connection  with  this,  we  are  asked  to 
read  the  epistles  to  Timothy — the  power  there  given 
"personally  to  Timothy  at  Ejrfiesits,"  (Tract,  p.  23,) 
or  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed,  "  Compare  now  with 
this  sum  total  of  power  assigned  to  mere  elders,  or 
presbyters,  that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  the  very 
city  and  region  in  which  those  addressed  by  Paul 
in  Acts  xx.  resided  and  ministered."  P.  25.  It  is 
said  by  Episcopalians  that  in  those  epistles  the 
"  right  of  governing  the  clergy  and  ordaining,  is 
ascribed  to  him  personally;"  and  numerous  undis- 
puted passages  are  adduced  by  them  to  show  that 
Timothy  is  addressed  as  having  this  power.  1  Tim. 
i.  18;  iii.  14,  15;  iv.  6;  1  Tim.  i.  3;  v.  19-21, 
etc.  etc. 

Now,  this   argument   proceeds  on  the  following' 
assumptions,  viz.   1.  That  Timothy  was  called  an 
apostle,  and  was  therefore  invested  with  the  same 
powers  as  the  apostles,  and  was  one  of  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  office.     2.  That  he  was,  at  the  time 


84  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

when  Paul  gave  his  charge  to  the  elders  at  Mile- 
tus, bishop  of  Ephesus.  3.  That  the  "elders"  sum- 
moned to  Miletus  were  ministers  of  the  gospel  of 
the  second  order,  or,  as  they  are  now  usually  termed, 
priests,  in  contradistinction  from  bishops  and  dea- 
cons. If  these  points  are  not  made  out  from  the 
New  Testament,  or  if  any  one  of  them  fails,  this 
argument  for  Episcopacy  will  be  of  no  value. 

The  first  claim  is,  that  Timothy  is  called  an 
"apostle,"  and  was,  therefore,  clothed  with  apos- 
tolic powers.  The  proof  on  which  this  claim  is 
made  to  rest  is  contained  in  1  Thess.  i.  1,  com- 
pared with  1  Thess.  ii.  6.  Paul,  Silvanus,  and 
Timothy  are  joined  together  in  the  commencement 
of  the  epistle,  as  writing  it  to  the  church  at  Thessa- 
lonicaj  and  in  ch.  ii.  6,  the  following  expression 
occurs:  "Nor  of  man  sought  we  glory — when  we 
might  have  been  burdensome  as  the  apostles  of 
Christ."  This  is  the  sole  proof  of  the  apostleship 
of  Timothy,  of  which  so  much  is  made  in  the 
Episcopal  controversy,  and  which  is  usually  ap- 
pealed to  as  of  itself  sufficient  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  point  in  this  controversy 
'asserted  with  more  confidence,  or  more  relied  on  by 
Episcopalians,  than  that  Timothy  was  an  "apostle," 
and  was  "bishop"  or  prelate  of  Ephesus.  It  is  of 
importance,  therefore,  to  show  how  this  matter  is  in 
the  New  Testament;  and  having  disposed  of  this 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  85 

case,  the  argument  about  the  immediate  "  succes- 
sors" of  the  apostles  is  at  an  end. 

Now,  without  insisting  on  the  point  which  has 
been  made  out,  that  the  apostolic  office  was  con- 
ferred not  to  impart  "superiority  of  ministerial 
rights  and  powers,"  but  to  bear  "witness''  to  the 
great  events  in  the  life  and  teachings  of  the  Saviour, 
the  claim  will  be  disposed  of  by  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

1.  The  passage  in  1  Thess.  ii.  6  does  not  fairly 
imply  that  Timothy  was  even  called  an  apostle. 
For  it  is  admitted  (Tract,  p.  15)  that  "it  is  not 
unusual  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the  plural  number  of 
himself  only."  It  is  argued,  indeed,  that  the  words 
"apostles,"  and  "our  own  souls,"  (v.  8,)  being  in- 
applicable to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural  number, 
the  "three  whose  names  are  at  the  head  of  the 
epistle  are  here  spoken  of  jointly."  But  if  Paul 
used  the  plural  number  as  applicable  to  himself, 
would  it  not  be  natural  for  him  to  continue  its  use, 
and  to  employ  the  adjectives  connected  with  it  in 
the  same  number?  Besides,  there*  is  conclusive 
evidence  that  Paul  did  not  intend  to  include  the 
"three"  named  at  the  head  of  the  epistle  in  this 
expression  in  ver.  6.  For  in  the  verses  immediately 
preceding  the  following  language  occurs :  "  We  had 
suffered  before,  and  were  shamefully  treated,  as  ye 
know,  at  Philippi,"  etc.  Now  it  is  capable  of  de- 
monstration that  Timothy  was  not  present  at  that 

8 


86  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

time,  and  was  not  subjected  to  those  sufferings  at 
Philippi.  Acts  xvi.  12,  19;  xviii.  1-4.  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  Paul  did  not  intend  here  to 
imply  that  "the  three  named  at  the  head  of  the 
epistle"  were  apostles,  and  that  he  intended  to 
speak  of  himself  alone  in  ver.  6.  That  this  is  so, 
is  evident  from  chap.  iii.  In  ver.  1  of  that  chapter 
Paul  uses  the  plural  term  also:  "When  we  could 
no  longer  forbear,  ice  thought  it  good  to  be  left  at 
Athens  alone."  Comp.  ver.  5.  "For  this  cause, 
when  I  could  no  longer  forbear,  /sent  to  know  your 
faith."  From  this  it  is  clear  that  Paul,  when  he 
uses  the  plural  here,  refers  only  to  himself,  and  that 
Timothy  and  Silas  are  associated  with  him  in  chap, 
i.  1,  not  as  having  apostolic  authority,  but  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  salutation  or  kind  remembrance. 

2.  Our  next  proof  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apos- 
tle is,  that  he  is  expressly  distinguished  from  Paul 
as  an  apostle;  that  is,  in  the  same  verse  Paul  is 
careful  to  speak  of  himself  as  an  apostle,  and  of 
Timothy  as  not  an  apostle.  Thus,  2  Cor.  i.  1 : 
"Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our 
brother"  Again,  Col.  i.  1:  "Paul  an  apvstle  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother."  Now  the 
argument  is  this,  that  if  Paul  regarded  Timothy  as 
an  apostle,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  should  be  so 
careful  to  make  this  distinction,  when  his  own  name 
is  mentioned  as  an  apostle.  Why  did  he  not  also 
make  the  same   honourable  mention  of   Timothy  f 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  87 

The  distinction  is  the  more  remarkable  from  the 
next  consideration  to  be  adduced,  which  is,  that 
Paul  is  so  cautious  on  this  point — so  resolved  not  to 
call  Timothy  an  apostle — that  when  their  names  are 
joined  together,  as  in  any  sense  claiming  the  same 
appellation,  it  is  not  as  apostles,  but  as  servants. 
Phil.  i.  1:  "Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of 
Jesus  Christ."  See,  also,  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Thess.  i.  1. 
These  considerations  put  it  beyond  debate  that  Timo- 
thy is  not  called  an  apostle  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  second  claim  for  Timothy  is,  that  he  was 
bishop — that  is,  prelate — of  Ephesus.  This  is  com- 
monly assumed  by  Episcopalians  as  an  indisputable 
or  conceded  point.  Indeed,  so  confident  are  they 
of  this,  that  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  by  them  to 
suggest  any  arguments  in  the  case,  but  it  is  adverted 
to  as  if  it  were  among  undoubted  historical  facts. 
Thus,  in  one  of  the  latest  publications  on  Episco- 
pacy, Dr.  McCoskry  says,  "The  apostle  places  him 
[Timothy]  over  the  church  at  JEj)hesus,  and  gives 
him  the  power  to  ordain  elders  and  deacons  in  the 
churches,  as  is  evident  from  his  instructions  to 
him."  Now  this  point  should  be  made  out,  for  it 
is  not.  one  of  those  which  we  are  disposed  by  any 
means  to  concede.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that 
it  is  a  point  which  is  to  be  made  out  from  the  New 
Testament,  for  our  inquiry  is,  Whether  Episcopacy 
can  be  defended  "by  Scripture."  Let  us  see  how 
this  matter  stands. 


05  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  the  sub- 
scription at  the  close  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy* is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  uninspired,  and 
of  no  authority  in  the  argument.  Assuredly,  Paul 
would  not  close  a  letter  by  seriously  stating  to  Ti- 
mothy that  he  wrote  "a  second  epistle"  to  him,  in- 
forming him  that  he  was  "  ordained  the  first  bishop 
of  the  church  of  the  Ephesians,"  and  that  it  was 
"written  from  Rome  when  Paul  was  brought  before 
Nero  the  second  time."  None  of  the  subscriptions 
at  the  close  of  the  -epistles  in  the  New  Testament 
are  of  any  authority  whatever;  several  of  them 
are  undoubtedly  false ;  and  where  they  happen  to  be 
correct,  the  correctness  is  to  be  made  out  from  other 
considerations  than  the  fact  that  they  are  found 
there. 

Now,  how  does  the  case  stand  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment with  respect  to  Timothy?  What  testimony 
does  it  afford  as  to  his  being  "bishop  of  Ephesus?" 
A  few  observations  will  show  what  is  the  real 
strength  of  the  proof  relied  on  by  Episcopalians  in 
the  case  : 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  he  was  not  at  Ephesus  at 
the  time  when  Paul  made  his  address  to  the-  elders 
at  Miletus.  Acts  xx.  17-35.  Thus,  Dr.  Onder- 
donk  (Tract,  p.  25)  says,  "Ephesus  was  without  a 

*  "The  second  epistle  unto  Timotheus,  ordained  the  first 
bishop  of  the  church  of  the  Ephesians,  was  written  from  Rome, 
when  Paul  was  brought  before  Nero  the  second  time." 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  89 

bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the  elders,  Timothy 
not  having  been  placed  over  that  church  till  some 
time  afterward/'  Here,  then,  was  one  diocese,  or 
one  collection  of  churches,  which  is  admitted  to 
have  been  constituted  without  a  prelate.  The  pre- 
sumption is,  that  all  others  were  organized  in  the 
same  way. 

2.  The  charge  which  Paul  saves  to  the  elders 
proves  that  Timothy  was  not  there;  and  proves  fur- 
ther, that  they,  at  that  time,  had  no  prelatical 
bishops,  and  that  they  previously  had  had  none. 
The}-  are  charged  to  take  heed  to  themselves  and 
to  all  the  flock;  "to  feed"  or  "to  rule"  the  flock 
etc.  But  not  one  word  is  to  be  found  of  their 
having  then  any  prelatical  bishop;  not  one  word  of 
Timothy  as  their  episcopal  leader.  Not  an  exhorta- 
tion is  given  to  be  subject  to  any  prelate;  not  an 
intimation  that  they  would  ever  be  called  on  to  re- 
cognise any  such  officer.  Not  one  word  of  lamenta- 
tion or  condolence  is  expressed,  that  they  were  not 
fully  supplied  with  all  proper  episcopal  authority. 
Now,  all  this  is  inexplicable  on  the  supposition 
that  they  were  then  destitute,  and  that  it  was  desi- 
rable that  they  should  be  supplied  with  an  officer 
"  superior  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  Nay, 
they  are  themselves  expressly  called  bishops,  without 
the  slightest  intimation  that  there  were  any  higher 
or  more  honourable  prelates  than  themselves.  Acts 
xx.  28:  "Take  heed,  therefore,  to  yourselves,  and 


90  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

to  all  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made,  you  bishops" -*—&mffx6izouq, 

3.  It  is  admitted  by  non-Episcopalians  that  Timo- 
thy subsequently  was  at  Ephesus,  and  that  he  was 
left  there  for  an  important  purpose  by  the  apostle 
Paul.  This  was  when  he  went  to  Macedonia, 
1  Tim.  i.  3 :  "  As  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at 
Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine, neither  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless  ge- 
nealogies." This  is  the  only  intimation  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  Timothy  was  ever  at  Ephesus  at 
all,  except  in  the  incidental  statement  in  Acts  xix. 
22,  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  had  there,  in  con- 
nection with  Erastus,  "ministered"  to  Paul:  "So 
he  [Paul]  sent  into  Macedonia  two  of  them  that 
ministered  unto  him,  Timotheus  and  Erastus. "  It 
is  absolutely  certain  from  this  that  Timothy  was  not 
"bishop"  of  Ephesus  at  that  time;  and  if  the  fact 
that  he  was  at  Ephesus  would  prove  that  he  was, 
the  statement  would  prove  that  Erastus  was  also. 
Lt  is  important,  then,  to  ascertain  whether,  when  he 
was  left  there  by  Paul  on  his  going  into  Macedonia, 
he  was  left  there  as  a, permanent  bishop?  Now,  in 
settling  this,  I  remark,  it  is  nowhere  intimated  in 
the  New  Testament  that  he  was  such  a  bishop. 
The  passage  before  us  (1  Tim.  i.  3)  states,  that 
when  they  were  travelling  together,  Paul  left  him 
there,  while  he  himself  should  go  over  into  Mace- 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCB  91 

donia.  The  object  for  which  he  left  him  is  explicitly 
stated,  and  that  object  was  not  that  he  should  be  a 
permanent  prelatical  bishop.  It  is  said  to  be — uto 
charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,  nei- 
ther to  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless  genealogies ;" 
that  is,  manifestly,  to  perform  a  temporary  office  of 
regulating  certain  disorders  in  the  church;  of  silenc- 
ing certain  false  teachers  of  Jewish  extraction ;  of 
producing,  in  one  word,  a  harmonizing  effect  which 
the  personal  iufluence  of  the  apostle  himself  might 
have  produced,  but  for  a  sudden  and  unexpected  call 
to  Macedonia.  Acts  xx.  1.  Hence,  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  the  apostle  designed  this  as  a  temporary 
appointment  for  a  specific  object,  and  that  object 
was  not  to  he  prelate  of  the  church.  Thus  he  says, 
1  Tim.  iv.  13,  "  Till  I come,  give  attention  to  read- 
ing;" implying  that  his  temporary  office  was  then 
to  cease.  Thus,  too,  referring  to  the  same  purpose 
to  return  and  join  Timothy,  he  says,  1  Tim.  iii.  14, 
15  :  "  These  things  I  write  unto  thee,  hoping  to 
come  unto  thee  shortly;  but,  if  I  tarry  long,  that 
thou  mightest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave 
thyself  in  the  house  of  God;"  implying  that  these 
directions  were  particularly  to  serve  him  during  his 
appointment  to  the  sp>ecific  business  of  regulating 
the  disordered  affairs  caused  by  false  teachers,  and 
which  might  require  the  discipline  of  even  some  of 
the  bishops  and  deacons  of  the  church,  ch.  v.  vi. 
These  directions,   involving  general   principles  in- 


92  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

deed,  and  of  value  to  regulate  his  whole  life,  had, 
nevertheless,  a  manifest  special  reference  to  the 
cases  which  might  occur  there,  in  putting  a  period 
to  the  promulgation  of  erroneous  doctrines  hy  Jewish 
teachers. 

4.  The  claim  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus  is  one  that  must  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians 
from  the  New  Testament.  But  this  claim  has  not 
been  made  out,  nor  can  it  ever  be.  There  is  no- 
where in  the  New  Testament  a  declaration  or  an 
intimation  that  he  was  constituted  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus.  No  assertion,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is 
concerned,  could  possibly  be  more  gratuitous  than 
that  he  was  "  bishop  of  Ephesus;"  and  the  wonder 
is,  that  such  an  assertion  was  ever  made  as  depend- 
ing on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  or  that 
it  should  continue  to  be  persevered  in.  Probably, 
the  real  ground  of  confidence  in  those  who  continue 
to  make  this  assertion  is  the  subscription  at  the 
close  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy — a  subscrip- 
tion whose  age  and  author  are  unknown,  and  which 
is  destitute  of  every  shadow  of  authority. 

5.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  shows  further, 
that  at  the  time  when  that  was  written,  there  was 
no  prelatical  bishop  at  Ephesus.  Though,  in  that 
epistle,  the  apostle  gives  the  church  various  in- 
structions about  the  relations  which  existed,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  Timothy  was  there ; 
nor   is   there   the    least  intimation  tuat  any  such 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  93 

officer   ever  had  been,  or  ever  would  be,  set  over 
them. 

The  evidence  from  this  epistle  deserves  more 
notice  than  has  been  usually  bestowed  upon  it,  and, 
taking  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  into  con- 
sideration, is  decisive  on  the  question  whether  the 
church  there  had  an  Episcopal  bishop.  The  cir- 
cumstances are  these  :  (1.)  If  Timothy  was  there 
as  a  "  bishop"  when  the  epistle  was  written,  it  is 
remarkable  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  him  in  the 
epistle.  A  total  want  of  all  mention  of  him  would 
have  been  an  act  of  discourtesy  such  as  we  should 
not  expect  from  the  apostle  Paul.  (2.)  If  he  had 
been  formerly  there  and  was  then  absent,  it  is  no 
less  remarkable  that  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  ab- 
sent "  bishop"  of  the  church.  It  is  difficult  to  ac- 
count for  it  that  there  is  no  kind  reference  to  his 
labours  and  fidelity  j  no  expression  of  a  wish  that 
the  church  might  soon  enjoy  his  labours  again. 
(3.)  If  the  church  was  deprived  of  its  bishop,  or 
had  none,  and  this  "  grade  of  officers"  was  essential 
to  the  proper  organization  of  the  church,  then  it  is 
equally  remarkable  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  this 
fact,  and  no  exhortation  to  take  the  proper  measures 
to  complete  their  organization  by  securing  .the  ser- 
vices of  one  of  the  "  successors  of  the  apostles." 
(4.)  Very  specific  instructions  are  given  in  the 
epistle  to  a  great  variety  of  persons,  but  none  in 
relation  to  the  "  bishop,"  or  their  duties  to  him. 


94  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

Thus,  we  have  special  exhortations  addressed  to  the 
church,  ch.  iv. ;  to  husbands  and  wives,  ch.  v.  21- 
23;  to  children  and  fathers,  ch.  vi.  1-4;  to  ser- 
vants, ch.  vi.  5-8 ;  to  masters,  ch.  vi.  9 ;  but  not 
one  word  in  regard  to  the  prelate  or  their  duty  to 
him.  If  it  be  said  here  that  the  same  thing  is  true 
in  regard  to  all  ministers,  and  that  they  are  not 
alluded  to,  the  answer  is  obvious.  Paul  had  given 
them  a  solemn  charge  personally  when  at  Miletus, 
(Acts  xx.  17-35,)  and  it  was  not  necessary  to  allude 
to  the  subject  in  the  epistle.  He  had  said  to  them 
all  which  it  was  desirable  to  say,  and  no  reference, 
therefore,  is  made  to  the  subject  in  the  epistle. 

Now,  if  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  Timothy  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  then,  in  reading  Paul's  charge  to 
the  elders  at  Miletus,  we  are  to  regard  them  as  in- 
trusted with  the  care  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  our  argument  at  present  to  in- 
quire whether  they  were  mere  ruliDg  elders,  or  pres- 
byters ordained  to  preach  as  well  as  to  rule.  All 
that  is  incumbent  on  us  is,  to  show  that  the  New 
Testament  does  not  warrant  the  assumption  that 
they  were  subject  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  We  affirm, 
therefore,  simply,  that  Paul  addressed  them  as  in- 
trusted with  the  spiritual  instruction  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  without  any  re- 
ference whatever  to  any  person,  either  then  or  after- 
ward placed  over  them,  as  superior  in  ministerial 
rights  and  powers.     And  this  point  is  conclusively 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  95 

established  by  two  additional  considerations  : — first, 
that  they  themselves  are  expressly  called  bishops, 
tztaxoTzouq — a  most  remarkable  appellation,  if  the 
apostle  meant  to  have  them  understand  that  they 
were  to  be  under  the  administration  of  another  bishop 
of  superior  ministerial  powers  and  rights ;  and,  se- 
cond, that  they  are  expressly  intrusted  with  the  whole 
spiritual  charge  of  the  church:  "  Feed  the  church 
of  God" — Tcotfiabsat  ttjv  ixx/.r^iriav  x.t.X.  But  every 
thing  in  this  case  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition 
that  they  were  invested  with  the  simple  power  of 
ruling.  ,No  one  can  deny  that  the  word  here  used 
in  the  instructions  of  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus 
involves  the  idea  of  ruliny  or  governing.  It  pro 
perly  means  to  feed,  pasture,  guard,  defend,  tend, 
as  applied  to  a  flock,  and  refers  to  all  the  care 
which  a  shepherd  would  extend  over  his  flock. 
This  includes  not  merely  the  feeding,  properly  so 
called,  but  the  attention  implied  in  protecting  them, 
guiding  them,  saving  them  from  danger,  from  ene- 
mies, &c.  This  language,  when  transferred  to  the 
shepherd  of  souls,  the  minister  of  the  church, 
means  that  he  is  to  exercise  a  similar  care  over  the 
flock  intrusted  to  him,  the  church.  The  mere  busi- 
ness of  counsel  and  instruction,  of  preaching  and 
exhortation,  does  not  meet  the  full  sense  of  the 
word,  any  more  than  the  mere  business  of  feeding  a 
flock  would  embrace  all  that  the  word  means  when 
applied  to  a  shepherd.      See  Passow  Lex.      The 


9ff 


ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 


word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  follow- 
ing places,  and  translated  in  the  following  manner: 
In  Matt.  ii.  6,  Rev.  ii.  27,  xii.  5,  xix.  15,  it  is  ren- 
dered rule ;  and  in  Luke  xvii.  7,  John  xxi.  16,  Acts 
xx.  28,  1  Cor.  ix.  7,  1  Pet.  v.  2,  Jude  12,  Rev. 
vii.  17,  it  is  rendered  feed.  In  two  of  these  places 
(Luke  xvii.  7,  1  Cor.  ix.  7)  it  is  applied  to  the 
literal  care  of  a  flock ;  and  in  the  others,  where  it 
is  applied  to  a  people,  it  involves  the  idea  ^f  govern- 
ment or  control  over  them.  The  idea  which  would 
have  been  conveyed  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus  by  the 
language  employed  by  Paul  would  be,  that  they 
were  to  exercise  the  same  care  over  the  church 
which  a  shepherd  does  over  his  flock,  or  which  a 
governor  does  over  his  people,  or  which  the  com- 
mander of  an  army  does  over  his  army.  Every 
thing  involved  in  control,  care,  discipline,  govern- 
ment, would  be  fairly  and  obviously  conveyed  by 
the  use  of  the  term.  It  is  the  same  language  which 
the  Saviour  used  when  he  addressed  Peter,  one  of 
the  apostles,  in  regard  to  the  rule  which  he  was  to 
exercise  over  the  church,  (John  xxi.  16,)  and  which 
he  afterward  himself  addressed  to  the  "  elders"  of 
the  church,  ranking  himself  with  them  as  an  elder. 
(1  Peter  v.  2,) — in  both  places  rendered  I'feed;" 
and  is  language  which  would  not  suggest  the  idea 
that  there  was  a  superior  "grade"  of  ministers  over 
them,  and  which  would  not  have  been  used  if  there 
had  been  such  a  grade.     The  difficulty  implied  in 


OF    THE    APOFTOLIC    CHURCH.  97 

the  use  of  this  word  here  bj  Paul,  as  addressed  to 
the  elders  at  Ephesus,  has  been  felt  by  all  Episco- 
palians. Dr.  Onderdonk  (Tract,  p.  24)  asserts,  in 
order  to  meet  the  difficulty,  that  the  authority  of 
the  elders  at  Ephesus  extended  only  to  the  "  laity,' ' 
or  church  members,  while  Timothy,  their  bishop, 
had  authority  over  the  clergy.  But  where  is  the 
proof  of  this  ?  No  such  intimation  is  found  in  the 
address  of  Paul.  The  authority  given  them  was 
"  to  feed,  rule,  or  govern  the  church"  of  which  they 
were  the  "  bishops'' — l-iffxarzouq. 

Let  us  now  state  the  results  of  our  investigation, 
and  dispose  of  the  case  of  Timothy.  It  has  been 
shown  that  he  was  not  an  apostle.  It  has  been  fur- 
ther shown  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus.  We  have  thus  destroyed  the 
claim  of  the  permanency  of  the  apostolic  office,  so 
far  as  Timothy  is  concerned.  And  we  now  insist 
that  they  who  wish  to  defend  Episcopacy  by  "  Scrip- 
ture" should  read  the  two  epistles  to  Timothy, 
without  the  vain  and  illusory  supposition  that  he 
was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  With  this  matter  clear 
before  us,  how  stands  the  case  in  these  two  epistles  ? 
I  answer,  thus  : — 

(1.)  Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus  for  a  special 
purpose  —  to  allay  contentions,  and  prevent  the 
spreading  of  false  doctrine.  The  object  for  which 
he  was  left  there  is  so  explicitly  stated,  that  there 
need  be  no  occasion  for  ambiguity  or  doubt :  u  I  be- 

9 


98  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

sought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia,  that  thou  mightest  charge  some 
that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,  neither  gave  heed 
to  fables  and  endless  genealogies."  1  Tim.  i.  3,  4. 
The  object  was  not  to  perform  the  rite  ot'  confirma- 
tion, nor  to  take  the  general  oversight  of  a  diocese, 
nor  to  ordain  ministers,  nor  to  administer  discipline. 
None  of  these  things,  which  are  now  understood  to 
be  the  proper  functions  of  prelatical  bishops,  are 
alluded  to  or  hinted  at.  It  was  to  make  use  of  his 
influence,  under  the  authority  of  the  apostle,  to  pre- 
vent the  propagation  of  error,  and  to  maintain  the 
truth — a  work  which  would  fall  in  with  the  proper 
functions  of  any  minister  of  the  gospel.  In  this, 
assuredly,  there  was  nothing  that  claimed  peculiarly 
episcopal  authority  and  rank,  for  it  is  not  even  now 
claimed  as  one  of  the  peculiar  rights  of  Episcopal 
bishops. 

(2.)  It  is  not  intimated  or  implied  that  Timothy 
was  ordained,  constituted,  or  appointed  there  at  all. 
The  language  is,  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at 
Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Macedonia."  The  fact 
in  the  case  was,  that  Paul  and  Timothy  had  been 
labouring  there  conjointly.  Neither  of  them  was 
bishop  of  the  place.  Paul  was  himself  called  to  go 
to  Macedonia,  but  he  felt  that  it  was  important  for 
one  of  them  to  remain  at  Ephesus  for  a  time,  and 
he  "  besought"  Timothy  to  do  it.  Had  it  not  been 
for  this  request  of  Paul,  Timothy  would  have  gone 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  99 

with  him  as  a  matter  of  course  j  that  is,  if  he  was 
the  "bishop"  of  Ephesus,  he  would  have  gone  off 
with  the  apostle — would  have  left  his  diocese — ■ 
would  have  travelled  to  another  part  of  the  world ; 
and  it  was  only  by  the  earnest  exhortation  of  the 
apostle  Paul  that  this  "prelate"  was  induced  to  re- 
main and  attend  to  the  appropriate  functions  of  his 
episcopate.  If  Timothy  was  such  a  "  bishop"  as 
this,  he  set  a  bad  example  to  his  "  apostolical  suc- 
cessors." There  are  very  few  Presbyterian  pastors 
who  would  have  needed  the  exhortation  of  an 
apostle  to  remain  and  attend  to  the  proper  duties  of 
his  own  charge. 

(3.)  This  arrangement,  as  appears  from  the 
epistles,  and  as  proved  above,  was  to  be  temporary. 
Thus,  Paul  says  that  he  left  him  there,  not  to  be  a 
permanent  bishop  of  the  church,  but  "  that  he  might 
charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine."  So 
far  as  the  terms  of  this  commission  go,  as  soon  as  he 
had  in  a  proper  way  delivered  this  charge,  and  so 
settled  matters  that  there  would  not  be  danger  that 
the  erroneous  doctrine  would  be  taught,  he  would 
be  at  liberty  to  change  the  place  of  his  labours. 
That  this  was  designed  to  be  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment, and  not  a  permanent  appointment  to  the 
office  of  a  prelate,  is  further  manifest  from  another 
statement  in  the  epistle  itself,  (ch.  iii.  14,  15:) 
"  These  things  write  I  unto  thee,  hoping  to  come 
unto  thee  shortly:    but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou 


100  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

majest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself 
in  the  house  of  God."  Here  it  is  evident  that, 
whatever  was  the  reason  why  the  apostle  was  sepa- 
rated from  him  on  this  occasion,  he  expected  that 
the  cause  would  soon  cease,  and  that  their  united 
labours  would  soon  be  resumed  as  before.  Timothy 
was  young  and  inexperienced,  and  Paul  gave  him 
such  directions  as  would  aid  him  in  the  work  which 
was  for  a  time  intrusted  to  him.  But  suppose  that 
Timothy  was  the  permanent  bishop  of  Ephesus : 
how  incongruous  and  improper  would  it  have  been 
for  Paul  to  say  that  he  had  given  him  instructions 
that  would  be  adapted  to  direct  him  during  his  own 
temporary  absence,  and  that  he  hoped  soon  to  re- 
turn to  him  again. — The  same  thing  is  implied  in 
ch.  iv.  13,  of  this  same  epistle  :  "Till  I  come,  give 
attendance  to  reading,  to  exhortation,  to  doctrine." 
Why  is  the  phrase  "  till  1  come"  inserted,  if  Timothy 
was  the  established  prelatical  bishop  over  Ephesus? 
How  can  it  be  explained,  except  on  the  supposition 
that  Paul  regarded  their  separation  as  temporary, 
and  that  he  supposed  they  would  again  resume 
their  joint  labours  as  they  had  done  before,  without 
either  of  them  having  any  especial  jurisdiction  over 
Ephesus  or  any  other  "diocese"? 

(4.)  Timothy,  as  appears  from  the  epistles,  was 
intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordination,  and  with  the 
authority  of  government  in  the  church,  just  as  all 
ministers  of  the  gospel  are.     He  is  charged,  indeed, 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  101 

to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  (1  Tim.  v.  22;) 
to  "  commit  the  things  which  he  had  heard  of  Paul 
among  many  witnesses,  to  faithful  men  who  should 
be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  (2  Tim.  ii.  2;)  to  "put 
the  brethren  in  remembrance  of  these  things," 
(1  Tim.  iv.  6;)  to  "  charge  some  that  they  taught 
no  other  doctrine,"  (1  Tim.  i.  3;)  not  to  "receive 
ah  accusation  against  an  elder,  but  before  two  or 
three  witnesses,"  (1  Tim.  v.  19;)  and  not  to  "rebuke 
an  elder,  but  to  entreat  him  as  a  father."  1  Tim. 
v.  1.  These  are  all  the  specifications  to  be  found 
in  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  showing  that  Timothy 
had  the  right  of  ordaining  or  of  governing  the 
church  intrusted  to  him  at  all,  and  there  is  not  a 
syllable  in  them  that  contains  any  thing  peculiar  to 
the  supposed  office  of  a  prelatical  bishop,  or  that  im- 
plies that  Timothy  had  any  such  office.  They  are 
just  such  directions  as  would  be  given  to  any  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  authorized  to  preach,  to  ordain,  to 
administer  the  ordinances  of  the  church  and  its  dis- 
cipline— just  such  as  are,  in  fact,  given  now  to  men 
who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity.  The 
"  charges"  which  are  given  to  Presbyterian  and 
Congregational  ministers  at  their  ordination  are 
almost  uniformly  couched  in  the  same  language 
which  is  used  by  Paul  in  addressing  Timothy;  nor 
is  there  any  thing  in  those  epistles  which  may  not 
be,  and  which  is  not  in  fact,  often  addressed  to 
ministers  on  such  occasions.     With  just  as  much 

9* 


102  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

propriety  might  some  antiquary  hereafter — some 
future  advocate  for  Episcopacy — collect  together 
the  charges  now  given  to  ministers,  and  appeal  to 
them  as  proof  that  the  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional churches  in  this  country  were  Episcopal,  as 
to  appeal  now  to  the  epistles  to  Timothy  to  prove 
that  he  was  a  prelate. 

5.)  The  work  which  Timothy  was  to  perform, 
even  in  Ephesus,  is  accurately  defined :  "  Watch 
thou  in  all  things ;  endure  afflictions ;  do  the  work 
of  an  evangelist ;  make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry." 
Here  Timothy  is  expressly  addressed  as  an  evan- 
gelist. This  was  his  appropriate  business ;  this,  his 
ofiice.  There  is  no  direction  to  exercise  any  of  the 
peculiar  functions  of  a  prelatical  bishop ;  there  is 
that  he  should  be  faithful  in  performing  the  work 
of  an  evangelist.  How  remarkable,  if  he  was  a 
"  successor''  of  the  apostles  in  the  peculiarity  of 
their  office,  that  the  apostle  should  limit  his  in- 
structions to  his  faithfully  performing  the  compara- 
tively humble  duties  of  an  evangelist  I 

(6.)  The  epistles  themselves  contain  evidence  of 
the  falsehood  of  the  supposition  that  there  was  an 
order  of  men  superior  to  the  presbyters  in  "  minis- 
terial powers  and  rights. "  There  are  but  two 
orders  of  ministers  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  in  them — 
bishops  and  deacons.  Let  the  emphatic  remark  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk  here  be  borne  in  mind,  (Tract, 
p.  12  :)  "  All  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  10S 

concerning  'bishops,'  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertain- 
ing to  the  'middle  grade;"  i.e.  nothing  in  these 
epistles  or  elsewhere,  where  this  term  is  used,  ha? 
any  reference  to  a  rank  of  ministers  superior  in 
ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  The  case,  then,  by 
the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalians,  is  this  :  Two 
epistles  are  addressed  by  an  apostle  to  a  successor 
of  the  apostles,  designated  as  such,  and  both  of 
which  are  intended  to  perpetuate  the  same  rank 
and  powers.  These  epistles  are  designed  to  instruct 
Timothy  in  the  organization  and.  government  of  the 
churches.  They  contain  ample  information,  and 
somewhat  protracted  discussions,  on  the  following 
topics  :  The  office  of  a  presbyter ;  the  qualifications 
for  that  office ;  the  office  of  the  deacons ;  the  quali- 
fications for  that  office  ;  the  qualifications  of  deacons' 
wives;  the  proper  discipline  of  an  elder;  the  quali- 
fications of  those  who  were  to  be  admitted  to  the 
office  of  deaconesses ;  the  duties  of  masters  and  ser- 
vants ;  the  duties  of  laymen ;  the  duties  of  Chris- 
tian females.  Nay,  they  contain  directions  about 
the  apostle's  cloak  and  parchments,  (2  Tim.  iv.  13;) 
but,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  not  one  syllable 
occurs  respecting  the  existence  of  a  grade  of  officers 
in  the  church  superior  "  in  ministerial  rights  and 
powers;"  not  a  word  about  their  qualifications,  or 
about  the  mode  of  ordaining  or  consecrating  them, 
or  about  Timothy's  fraternal  intercourse  with  his 
brother  prelates;    nothing  about  the  subjection  of 


104  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

the  priesthood  to  them,  or  about  their  peculiar 
functions  of  confirmation  and  superintendence.  In 
one  word,  taking  these  epistles  by  themselves,  no 
man  would  dream  that  there  were  any  such  officers 
in  existence.  I  ask,  now,  whether  any  candid 
reader  of  the  New  Testament  can  believe  that  there 
were  any  such  officers,  and  that  two  epistles  could 
have  been  written,  in  these  circumstances,  without 
the  slightest  allusion  to  their  existence  or  powers  ? 
Credat  Judseus  Apella*  Can  there  be  found  now, 
among  all  the  charges  which  Episcopal  bishops 
have  given  to  their  clergy,  any  two  in  which  there 
shall  not  be  found  some  allusion  to  the  "  primitive 
and  apostolic  order"  of  bishops  in  the  churches? 
It  remains  far  our  eyes  to  be  blessed  with  the  sight 
of  one  Episcopal  charge,  reminding  us  in  this  re- 
spect of  the  charges  of  Paul  to  Timothy.  The  re- 
marks of  Archbishop  Whately  in  relation  to  this 
are  so  forcible  and  appropriate,  that  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  insert  them  here.  "  It  is  plainly  recorded, " 
says  he,  "  that  they  (the  apostles)  did  establish 
churches  wherever  they  introduced  the  gospel ;  that 
they  ordained  elders  in  every  city,  and  the  apostles 
again  delegated  this  office  to  others ;  that  they  did 
administer  the  rite  of  baptism  to  their  converts; 
and  that  they  celebrated  the  communion  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  And  besides  the  general  principles 
of  Christian  faith  and  morality  which  they  sedu- 
lously set  forth,  they  have  recorded  the  most  earnest 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  105 

exhortations  to  avoid  '  confusion'  in  their  public 
worship ;  to  do  '  ail  things  decently  and  in  order ;' 
to  '  let  all  things  be  done  to  edifying/  and  not  for 
vain-glorious  display;  they  inculcate  the  duty  of 
Christians  '  assembling  themselves  together'  for  joint 
worship  ;  they  record  distinctly  the  solemn  sanction 
given  to  a  Christian  community ;  they  inculcate  due 
reverence  and  obedience  to  those  who  '  bear  rule'  in 
such  a  community,  with  censure  of  such  as  walk 
1  disorderly'  and  '  cause  divisions ;'  and  they  dwell 
earnestly  on  the  care  with  which  Christian  Minis- 
ters, both  male  and  female,  should  be  selected,  and 
on  the  zeal,  and  discretion,  and  blameless  life  re- 
quired in  them,  and  on  their  solemn  obligation  to 
<  exhort,  rebuke,  and  admonish  :'  yet  with  all  this, 
they  do  not  record  even  the  number  of  distinct  orders 
of  them,  or  the  functions  appropriated  to  each,  or 
the  degree,  and  kind,  and  mode  of  control  they 
exercised  in  the  churches."* 

(7.)  One  other  consideration  may  be  added  here, 
which  is  conclusive  as  to  the  question  whether 
Timothy  was  the  permanent  prelatical  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  It  is,  that  it  is  certain  that  he  did  not 
remain  permanently  in  that  city.  The  only  evi- 
dence that  he  was  ever  there  at  all  is  the  statement 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  (ch.  xix.  22,)  that  he, 
in  connection  with  Erastus,  had  then  " ministered" 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  $  10. 


106  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

unto  Paul,  and  the  statement  in  1  Tim.  i.  3,  that 
when  Paul  went  into  Macedonia,  he  left  him  there 
for  a  temporary  purpose.  I  now  remark,  that  there 
is  the  most  conclusive  proof  that  he  did  not  long 
remain  there.  He  was  with  the  apostle  at  Rome 
during  his  first  imprisonment,  and  united  with  him 
in  the  letters  to  the  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  to 
Philemon.  Col.  i.  1 ;  PhiLi.  1;  Philem.  1.  He  was 
with  him  in  Corinth  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
was  written.  Rom.  xvi.  21 ;  comp.  ch.  xvi.  1,  23 ; 
2  Tim.  iv.  20.  He  had  been  recently  imprisoned, 
probably  at  Rome,  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  written.  Heb«.  xiii.  23.  There  is  proof  that  he 
was  not  at  Ephesus  when  the  Second  Epistle  to  him 
was  written,  for  in  ch.  iv.  12,  Paul  informs  him  that 
he  "had  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephesus" — a  kind  of  in- 
formation which  Paul  would  not  have  given  if 
Timothy  had  been  there  himself  at  the  time  j  and 
from  the  following  verse  it  is  evident  that  at  the 
time  when  this  epistle  was  written,  Timothy  was 
supposed  to  be  at  Troas :  "The  cloak  which  I 
left  at  Troas,  when  thou  comest,  bring  with  thee/' 
How  little  does  all  this  look  as  if  Timothy  were  the 
permanent  bishop  of  Ephesus !  A  man  who  is 
never  mentioned  as  being  there  but  for  a  temporary 
purpose;  who  received  no  charge,  even  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  him  there,  but  such  as  might  be  given 
to  any  minister  of  the  gospel ;  who  is  repeatedly 
mentioned  as  being  elsewhere  united  with  Paul  in 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  107 

his  toils  and  trials ;  and  of  whom  there  is  no  inti- 
mation that  he  ever  did  return,  or  ever  would  re- 
turn, for  any  purpose  whatever  !  Such  is  the  strong 
case  on  which  so  much  reliance  is  placed  in  sus- 
taining the  enormous  fabric  of  Episcopacy  in  the 
world ! 

We  may  now  take  our  leave  of  the  case  of  Ti- 
mothy. The  case  of  Titus,  the  next  in  order,  can 
be  despatched  in  fewer  words.  The  argument  in 
defence  of  the  claim  respecting  Titus  does  not  vary 
materially  from  that  used  in  reference  to  Timothy. 
The  only  point  which  requires  a  moment's  examina- 
tion, in  addition  to  what  has  been  said  in  the  case 
of  Timothy,  is  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  left  at 
Crete.  Titus  i.  5  :  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city  as 
I  have  appointed  thee."  The  claim  of  Episco- 
palians here  is,  that  this*  indicates  such  a  perse- 
verance in  the  "  distinction  between  elders  and  a 
grade  superior  to  them,"  as  proves  that  it  was 
"to  be  a  permanent  arrangement."  In  other 
words,  Titus  was  to  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete, 
Buperior  to  the  elders  "  in  ministerial  rights  and 
powers."  This  claim  it  is  necessary  for  them  to 
establish  from  the  New  Testament.  If  there  are 
any  intimations  that  it  was  not  designed  to  be  per- 
manent,  they  will  be  fatal  to  the  argument.  We 
affirm,  then,  in  opposition  to  this  claim,  that  the 


108  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

case  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition  that  Titus,  in 
Crete,  was  an  extraordinary  officer,  like  Timothy 
at  Ephesus,  appointed  for  a  specific  purpose.  For, 
(1.)  The  appointment  itself  looks  as  if  this  was  the 
design.  Paul  had  himself  commenced  a  work  there, 
which,  from  some  cause,  he  was  unable  to  complete. 
That  work  he  left  Titus  to  finish.  As  it  cannot  be 
pretended  that  Paul  had  any  purpose  of  becoming 
the  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  so  it  cannot  be  that 
Titus's  being  left  to  complete  what  Paul  had  begun 
is  proof  that  he  expected  that  Titus  would  be  per- 
manent bishop.  An  appointment  to  complete  a 
work  which  is  begun  by  another,  when  the  original 
designer  did  not  contemplate  a  permanent  employ- 
ment, cannot  surely  be  adduced  in  proof  of  a  per- 
manent office.  If  I  am  employed  to  complete  an 
edifice  which  is  commenced,  it  does  not  suppose 
that  I  am  to  labour  at  it  all  my  life;  still  less,  that 
I  am  to. have  successors  ^n  the  undertaking.  This 
passage,  to  most  unbiassed  minds,  would  imply  that 
Paul  expected  Titus,  after  having  completed  what 
he  had  left  him  to  do,  to  leave  the  island  of  Crete, 
and  accompany  him  in  his  travels.  (2.)  That  this 
was  the  fact — that  he  had  no  expectation  that  Titus 
would  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  superior  in 
"  ministerial  rights  and  powers" — is  perfectly  appa- 
rent from  the  direction  in  the  same  epistle,  (ch.  iii. 
12  :)  "  When  I  shall  send  Artemas  unto  thee,  oi 
Tychicus,  be  diligent  to  come  unto  me  at  Nicopolis." 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  109 

Here  we  find  conclusive  proof  that  the  arrangement 
respecting  Titus  in  Crete  was  designed  to  be  tempo- 
rary. To  suppose  the  contrary  is  to  maintain  a 
position  in  the  very  face  of  the  directions  of  the 
apostle.  Every  thing  in  the  case  shows  that  he 
v~as  an  extraordinary  officer,  appointed  for  a  specific 
purpose ;  and  that  when  that  work  was  effected, 
which  the  apostle  supposed  would  be  soon,  he  was 
to  resume  his  station  as  his  travelling  companion 
and  fellow-labourer.  (3.)  That  this  was  the  yeneral 
character  of  Titus — that  he  was  regarded  by  Paul 
as  his  companion,  and  as  a  very  valuable  assistant 
to  him  in  his  travels — is  further  apparent  from 
2  Cor.  ii.  12, 13  ;  vii.  6-13.  In  the  former  of  these 
passages  he  says,  that  he  expected  to  meet  him  at 
TroaSy  and  intimates  that  his  presence  and  help 
were  very  necessary  for  him:  "When  I  came  to 
Troas  to  preach  Christ's  gospel,  and  a  door  was 
opened  unto  me  of  the  Lord,  I  had  no  rest  in  my 
spirit,  because  I  found  not  Titus  my  brother."  In 
the  latter  place,  (2  Cor.  vii.  6-13,)  we  find  him  the 
companion  of  the  apostle  Paul  in  Philippi :  "  There- 
fore we  were  comforted  in  your  comfort :  yea,  and 
exceedingly  the  more  joyed  we  for  the  joy  of  Titus, 
because  his  spirit  was  refreshed  by  you  all."  Again, 
(2  Cor.  xii.  18,)  we  find  him  employed  on  a  special 
embassy  to  the  church  in  Corinth,  in  respect  to  the 
collection  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem:  "I  de- 
sired Titus,"  [that  is,  to  go  to  them  to  receive  the 

10 


110  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

collection  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,]  and 
with  him  I  sent  a  brother.  Did  Titus  make  a  gain 
of  you?"  Comp.  Rom.  xv.  26.  And  again,  we 
find  him  on  a  mission  to  Dalmatia,  (2  Tim.  iv.  10  :) 
"  Demas  hath  forsaken  me,  having  loved  this  pre- 
sent world,  and  is  departed  unto  Thessalonica ; 
Crescens  to  Galatia,  Titus  unto  Dalmatia."  As- 
suredly, these  various  migrations  and  employments 
do  not  appear  as  if  he  was  designed  by  the  apostle 
to  be  the  permanent  prelatical  bishop  of  Crete. 
(4.)  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Titus  regarded  the 
apostolic  mandate  to  come  to  him  at  Nicopolis, 
(Titus  iii.  12 ;)  that  he  left  Crete  in  accordance 
with  Paul's  request;  and  as  there  is  no  intimation 
in  the  New  Testament  that  he  ever  returned  there, 
and  as  indeed  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  any- 
where that  he  permanently  resided  there,  or  that  he 
died  there,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was 
employed  for  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that,  having 
accomplished  it,  he  resumed  his  situation  as  the 
companion  of  Paul.  Comp.  Gal.  ii.  1.  It  must  be 
admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  Episcopalian  can- 
not prove  the  contrary.  Since,  moreover,  our  sup- 
position meets  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
and  we  are  able  to  show  that  this  was  the  general 
character  of  the  labours  of  Titus,  we  may  dismiss  his 
case  also. 

The  last  argument  of  Episcopalians  to  prove  the 
"apostolical  succession"  is  derived  from  the  epistles 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  Ill 

to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  Rev.  ii.  iii.  This 
argument  is  embodied  in  the  following  position : 
"Each  of  those  churches  is  addressed,  not  through 
its  clergy  at  large,  but  through  its  t angel/  or 
chief  officer;  this  alone  is  a  very  strong  argument 
against  parity  in  favour  of  Episcopacy."  "One 
of  those  churches  is  Ephesus;  and  when  we  read 
concerning  its  angel,  'thou  hast  tried  them  which 
say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found 
them  liars/  do  we  require  further  evidence  that 
what  Timothy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was  in  the 
year  65,  in  regard  to  the  supreme  right  of  disci- 
pline over  the  clergy,  the  same  was  its  chief  officer 
when  this  book  was  written,  in  96?"  The  singular 
number,  it  is  added,  is  used  emphatically  in  the 
address  to  each  of  the  angels,  and  "the  individual 
called  'the  angel'  is,  in  each  case,  identified  with 
his  church,  and  his  church  with  him." 

The  force  of  this  argument  can  be  founded  only 
on  the  supposition  that  the  epistles  to  those  churches 
are  addressed  to  an  individual  called  "the  angel  of 
the  church,"  and  that  this  individual  could  be  no 
other  than  a  prelatical  bishop.  It  is  indispensable 
that  each  of  these  points  should  be  made  out,  or 
the  argument  is  worthless.  It  will  not  do  to  ar- 
gue, because  Timothy  was  once  left  by  Paul  in 
Ephesus,  in  the  year  "65,"  that  therefore  there 
was  a  "bishop"  there  in  "96."  We  have  seen 
that  Timothy  did  not  long  remain  there;  that  he 


112  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

was  subsequently  with  the  apostle  Paul;  and  there 
is  not  the  slightest  intimation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  in  that  interval  of  thirty-one  years  a 
" successor''  was  appointed.  Whence,  then,  is  the 
ground  of  the  inference  that  thirty-one  years  after- 
ward, thiu  individual,  addressed  as  "the  angel  of 
the  church,"  was  the  "  successor"  of  Timothy?  The 
argument  from  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  churches, 
so  strenuously  urged  and  defended  by  Episcopalians, 
involves  also  the  following  assumptions : — 

(1.)  That  there  was  an  inferior  body  of  clergy- 
men, called  "  clergy  at  large."  t  Assuming  this 
point,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  make  out  an  argu- 
ment from  the  address  "to  the  angel."  But  this  is 
a  point  to  be  proved,  not  to  be  assumed.  Where  is 
there  found,  in  the  New  Testament,  an  intimation 
of  the  existence  of  an  order  of  "clergy  at  large" 
in  these  churches?  In  the  epistles  themselves, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  the  existence  of 
any  such  personages  distinct  from  "  the  angels." 
Nay,  the  very  style  of  address  is  strong  presump- 
tion that  there  were  not  any  such  inferior  clergy- 
men. The  only  mention  which  occurs  is  of  the 
angel  and  the  church.  We  hear  nothing  of  an  in- 
termediate order;  nothing  of  any  supremacy  of 
"the  angel"  over  "the  clergy  at  large;"  not  the 
least  intimation  of  any  duty  to  be  performed  by  the 
supposed  prelatical  "angel,"  toward  the  inferior 
presbyters.     Why  is  all  reference  to  them  omitted, 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  113 

if  thej  had  any  existence?  Is  it  customary,  in  ad- 
dressing "  bishops"  now,  to  omit  all  reference  to 
their  duties  over  the  inferior  " clergy  at  large"? 
This  is  a  point  of  too  much  consequence  to  be  left 
unguarded;  and  accordingly  the  rights  and  duties 
of  the  order  which  is  regarded'  as  superior  ain 
ministerial  rights  and  powers"  are  sedulously  marked 
out  and  inculcated. 

(2.)  It  must  be  assumed,  in  this  argument,  that 
there  were  in  each  of  those  cities  more  churches 
than  one;  that  there  was  a  circle  or  confederation 
of  churches,  which  would  answer  to  the  modern 
notion  of  a  "diocese,"  over  which  "the  clergy  at 
large,"  of  inferior  "ministerial  rights  and  powers," 
might  exercise  a  modified  jurisdiction.  If  this 
is  not  assumed,  the  argument  has  no  force ;  since,  if 
there  was  but  one  church  in  each  of  those  cities, 
the  "angel"  was  not  a  bishop  in  the  Episcopal 
sense,  but  a  pastor  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the 
term.  Now  this  is  a  point  which,  in  an  argument 
like  this,  should  not  be  assumed.  It  should  be 
proved,  or  at  least  rendered  highly  probable,  from 
the  New  Testament.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  of  any  such  divided  and  scattered  diocesam 
organization.  In  each  instance,  the  church  is  ad- 
dressed as  one  and  undivided.  "The  angel  of  the 
church,"  not  the  churches,  "of  Ephesus,"  Rev.  ii.  1; 
"The  angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna,"  ii.  8;  "the 
angel  of  the  church  at  Thyatira,"  ii  .18;  "the  angeL 

10* 


114  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

of  the  church  in  Sardis,"  iii.  1,  &c.      In  every  in- 
stance the  address  is  the  same.     The  point  of  inquiry 
now  is,  whether  in  this  address  the  Saviour  meant 
to  intimate  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  churches — 
an  ecclesiastical,  diocesan  organization  ?     This  is  a 
point  for    Episcopalians  to  prove,   not   to   assume. 
The  presumption  is  directly  against  the  Episcopa- 
lians.    It  is,  that  the  apostles  would  not  organize 
separate  churches  in  a  single   city;  and  that,  if  it 
were  done,  they  would  be  specified  as  the  churches. 
Accordingly,   we  learn  that  the    apostle   organized 
"a  church"  at  Corinth.   1  Cor.  i.  1,  2.     Thus,  also, 
at  Antioch.   Acts  xiii.  1.     Thus,  also,  at  Laodicea. 
Col.  iv.   16.     And  in  the  address  of   Paul  to  the 
elders  at  Miletus,  respecting  one  of  the  very  churches 
under  consideration,  that  at  Ephesus,  it  is  mentioned 
not  as  the  churches  of  Ephesus,  but  as  the  church. 
Acts  xx.  28  :  "Feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."     When  Paul 
addressed  this  same  church   in   an   epistle,  it  was 
directed,  not  to  the  churches,  but  to  the  saints  at 
Ephesus.   Eph.  i.  1.     But  where  there  were  distinct 
churches  organized,  there  is   a  specific  mention  of 
the  fact  of  the  plurality;  thus  Acts  xv.  41:  "  Paul 
went   through    Syria  and    Cilicia,   confirming  (i.e. 
strengthening,    establishing)    the    churches;"  Rom. 
xvi.  4:  "the  churches  of  the  Gentiles;"   1  Cor.  xvi. 
1 :   "the  churches  of  Galatia;"  1  Cor.  xvi.  19:  "the 
churches  of  Asia;"  2  Cor.  viii.  1 :  "the  churches  in 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  115 

Macedonia."  See  also,  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  23;  xi.  8; 
Gal.  i.  22;  Rev.  i.  4.  Now,  if  it  is  neither  proved 
that  there  was  a  body  of  "  clergy  at  large,"  nor  that 
there  were  separate  churches  in  each  of  those  cities, 
I  ask,  what  is  the  force  of  the  argument  from  this 
case?  How  does  it  bear  on  the  point  at  issue? 
What  has  it  to  do  with  the  subject? 

(3.)  A  third  assumption,  in  supposing  that  this 
argument  is  of  any  force,  is,  that  a  "successor"  to 
John  himself  had  already  been  appointed  at  Ephe- 
sus,  and  that  he  had  actually  taken  his  place.  John 
passed  a  large  part  of  his  long  life  there.  It 
was  from  Ephesus  that  he  was  banished  to  Patmos. 
If  there  was  a  prelate  at  Ephesus,  it  is  morally  cer- 
tain that  John  was  himself  the  man  Indeed,  it  is 
inconceivable,  almost,  that  any  other  should  have 
been  raised  to  the  episcopal  "throne"  in  Ephesus, 
while  John  was  himself  there,  or  should  have  the 
right  to  the  peculiar  title  of  "  the  angel"  of  the 
church.  It  is  equally  improbable  that  in  the  brief 
interval  between  the  banishment  of  the  apostle  and 
the  time  of  addressing  those  epistles  to  the  churches 
in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  another  person  should 
have  been  appointed  to  supersede  the  exiled  apostle. 
And  it  is  equally  improbable  also  that,  if  it  had 
been  so,  no  special  allusion  should  have  been  made 
to  this  circumstance  in  the  letter  addressed  to 
the  church  at  Ephesus.  All  thgse  circumstances 
are  so  remarkable  as  to  render  it  morally  certain 


116  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

that  no  such  individual  as  a  "prelatical  bishop,"  or 
a  "successor  of  the  apostles/'  was  addressed  under 
the  title  of  "the  angel  of  the  church." 

In  reference  to  the  term  "  angel/'  as  used  in  the 
Apocalypse,  I  have  only  to  remark,  further,  that  the 
interpretation  which  makes  it  refer  to  a  prelatical 
bishop  is  so  unnatural  and  forced,  that  many  Epis- 
copalians are  compelled  to  abandon  it.  Thus  Still- 
ingfleet,  than  whom  an  abler  man,  and  one  whose 
praise  is  higher  in  Episcopal  churches,  is  not  to  be 
found  among  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  says,  of  these 
angels:  " If  many  thiDgs  in  the  epistles  be  directed 
to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the  whole 
body,  then,  of  necessity,  the  angel  must  be  taken  as 
a  representative  of  the  whole  body;  and  then,  why 
may  not  the  word  angel  be  taken  by  way  of  repre- 
sentation of  the  body  itself,  either  of  the  whole 
church,  or,  which  is  far  more  probable,  of  the  con- 
cessors,  or  order  of  presbyters,  in  that  church  ?  We 
see  what  miserable,  unaccountable  arguments  those 
are  which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government 
from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expressions,  or 
names  promiscuously  used."    Irenicum. 

Archbishop  Whately  also  abandons  the  common 
views  of  Episcopalians  on  the  subject;  and  the  views 
of  Presbyterians,  who  regard  it  as  applicable  to  the 
pastor  of  a  single  church,  are  sustained  by  his  high 
authority.  He  says,  "It  seems  plainly  to  have  been 
the  general,  if  not  the  universal,   practice  of  the 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  117 

apostles,  to  appoint  over  each  separate  church  a  single 
individual  as  a  chief  governor,  under  the  title  of 
11  angel"  (i.  e.  messenger  or  legate  from  the  apostles) 
or  "bishop,"  t.  e.  superintendent  or  overseer.  A 
church  and  a  diocese  seem  to  have  been  for  a  con- 
siderable time  co-extensive  and  identical.  And  each 
church  or  diocese,  (and  consequently  each  superin- 
tendent,) though  connected  with  the  rest  by  the  ties 
of  faith  and  hope  and  charity,  seems  to  have  been 
(as  has  been  already  observed)  perfects  independ- 
ent as  far  as  regards  any  power  of  control."* 

With  one  or  two  additional  remarks,  I  shall  dis- 
miss this  point.  The  first  is,  that  it  cannot  be  argued 
from  the  term  angel,  given  to  those  ministers,  that 
they  were  Episcopal  bishops.  That  term,  as  is  well 
known,  has  no  exclusive  applicability  to  a  prelate. 
It  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  the  ministers  of  reli- 
gion; and  its  original  signification,  "a  messenger," 
or  its  usual  application  to  celestial  spirits,  has  no 
special  adaptedness  to  an  Episcopal  bishop.  With- 
out any  invidiousness,  it  may  be  observed  that  pre- 
lates have  not  usually  evinced  any  such  extraordinary 
sanctity  as  to  appropriate  this  title  to  themselves  by 
prescriptive  right.  The  other  remark  is,  that  the 
supposition  that  these  angels  were  pastors  of  the 
churches — presbyters  on  a  parity  with  each  other 
and  with  all  others — will  fully  meet  every  thing 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  §  20. 


118  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

which  is  said  of  them  in  the  book  of  Revelation : 
for,  (1)  It  is  an  appropriate  appellation  to  designate 
them — as  messengers  sent  by  God  to  communicate 
his  will  to  his  people — as  appointed  to  make  known 
his  truth;  (2)  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
there  was  more  than  one  church  in  each  of  the  cities 
referred  to,  and  it  is  indispensable  for  the  friend 
of  prelacy  to  prove  that  there  was,  before  he  can 
assume  that  this  term  was  not  used  to  designate  a 
pastor  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term;  (3)  it  is 
a  term  which  would  designate  the  respect  in  which 
the  office  was  to  be  held ;  (4)  it  would  impress  upon 
those  to  whom  it  was  applied  a  solemn  sense  of  their 
responsibility;  and  (5)  it  would  be  more  appro- 
priately applied  to  the  pastor  of  a  single  church 
than  to  a  prelatical  bishop — to  the  tender,  intimate, 
endearing  relation  of  a  pastor  with  his  people — to 
the  blending  of  sympathy,  interest,  and  affection, 
where  he  is  with  them  continually,  meets  them  each 
week  in  the  sanctuary,  administers  to  them  the 
bread  of  life,  goes  into  their  abodes  when  they  are 
afflicted,  and  attends  their  kindred  to  the  grave, — 
than  to  the  union  subsisting  between  the  people  of 
an  extended  diocese  and  a  prelate — to  the  formal, 
unfrequent,  and,  in  many  instances,  stately  and 
pompous,  visitations  of  a  diocesan  bishop — to  the 
cold  and  distant  connection  between  a  people  scat- 
tered into  many  churches,  who  are  visited  at  inter- 
vals of  a  year  or  more  by  one  claiming  "a  superiority 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  119 

in  ministerial  rights  and  powers/'  robed  in  lawn, 
and  with  the  crosier  and  mitre,  as  emblematical  of 
office,  state,  and  power,  and  one  who  must  be  a 
stranger  to  the  ten  thousand  tender  ties  of  endear- 
ment  which  bind  the  hearts  of  a  pastor  and  his  peo- 
ple together.  The  appellation  thus  given  to  a  pastor 
of  a  church  speaks  the  sentiments  of  our  hearts,  as 
respects  the  union  of  a  pastor  and  people.  And 
while  I  would  not  allow  myself  to  speak  with  disre- 
spect of  the  episcopal  office,  it  cannot  but  be  felt 
that  the  language  of  the  Saviour,  addressed  through 
the  mild  and  gentle  John  to  the  churches  of  Asia, 
breathes  far  more  of  the  endearing  "  identity"  of 
the  pastoral  relation,  than  it  does  of  the  compara- 
tively cold  and  distant  functions  of  one  who,  in  all 
other  lands  but  this,  has  been  invested  with  his 
office  by  the  imposing  ceremony  of  enthroning,  and 
who  has  borne,  less  as  badges  of  affection  than  of 
authority,  the  crosier  and  the  mitre. 

As  a  proper  conclusion,  in  regard  to  the  claims 
of  "  bishops"  to  a  superiority  of  rank  among  the 
clergy,  it  may  be  proper  to  state,  in  few  words,  what 
is  the  meaning  of  the  term  as  it  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament : 

The  word.  Itzmjxotztj — episcope — whence  the  word 
episcopal  is  derived,  occurs  but  four  times  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  translated  visitation  in  Luke 
xix.  44,  and  in  1  Pet.  ii.  12;  bishopric,  Acts  i.  20; 
and  in  this  place,  office  of  a  bishop.     The  verb  from 


120  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

which  it  is  derived  (J.m<r/.ox£.io)  occurs  but  twice. 
In  Heb.  xii.  15,  it  is  rendered  looking  diligently, 
and  in  1  Pet.  v.  2,  taking  the  oversight.  The  noun 
rendered  bishop  occurs  in  Acts  xx.  28;  Phil.  i.  Ij 
1  Tim.  iii.  2;  Titus  i.  7;  1  Pet.  ii.  25.  The  verb 
means,  properly,  to  look  upon,  behold,  to  inspect, 
to  look  after,  see  to,  take  care  of;  and  the  noun  de- 
notes the  office  of  overseeing,  inspecting,  or  looking 
to.  It  is  used  to  denote  the  care  of  the  sick,  (Xeno. 
(Eg.  15,  9;  comp.  Passow ;)  and  it  is  of  so  general 
a  character,  that  it  may  denote  any  office  of  over- 
seeing or  attending  to.  '  There  is  nothing  in  the 
word  itself  which  would  limit  it  to  any  class  or 
grade  of  the  ministry,  and  it  is,  in  fact,  applied  to 
nearly  all  the  officers  of  the  church  in  the  New 
Testament,  and,  indeed,  to  Christians  who  did  not 
sustain  any  office.  Thus  it  is  applied  (a)  to  be- 
lievers in  general,  directing  them  to  "look  dili- 
gently, lest  any  one  should  fail  of  the  grace  of  God," 
Heb.  xii.  15;  (b)  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  "over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  overseers,"  Acts  xx.  28;  (c)  to  the  elders 
or  presbyters  of  the  church,  in  1  Pet.  v.  2,  "Feed 
the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  oversight  thereof;"  (77) 
to  the  officers  of  the  church  in  Philippi,  mentioned 
in  connection  with  deacons  as  the  only  officers  of 
the  church  there, — "to  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with 
the  bishops  and  deacons/'  Phil.  i.  1;  (e)  to  Judas, 
the  apostate,  Acts  i.  20;  and  (/)  to  the  great  Head 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  121 

of  the  church,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "the  Shep- 
herd and  Bishop  of  your  souls."  1  Pet.  ii.  25. 
From  this  use  of  the  term,  it  follows :  (1.)  That  the 
word  is  never  used  to  denote  the  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office,  or  so  as  to  have  any  special  applica- 
bility to  the  apostles.  Indeed,  the  term  bishop  is 
never  applied  to  any  of  them  in  the  New  Testament; 
nor  is  the  word  in  any  of  its  forms  ever  used  with 
reference  to  them,  except  in  the  single  case  of 
Judas.  Acts  i.  20.  (2.)  It  is  never  employed  in 
the  New  Testament  to  designate  an  order  of  men 
superior  to  presbyters,  regarded  as  having  any  other 
functions  than  presbyters,  or  being  in  any  sense 
"  successors"  to  the  apostles.  It  is  so  used  now  by 
the  advocates  of  prelacy,  but  this  is  a  use  wholly 
unknown  to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  so  unde- 
niable that  the  name  is  never  given  in  the  New 
Testament  to  those  who  are  now  called  "  bishops," 
that  even  Episcopalians  concede  it.  Thus,  Dr.  On- 
derdonk  (Tract  on  Episcopacy,  p.  12)  says,  "All 
that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning 
'bishops'  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  the 
'middle  grade;'  that  is,  to  those  who  are  now  re- 
garded as  'priests."  This  is  not  strictly  correct, 
as  is  clear  from  the  remarks  above  respecting  what 
is  called  the  "middle  grade;"  but  it  is  strictly  cor- 
rect, so  far  as  it  affirms  that  it  is  never  applied  to 
prelates.  (3.)  It  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
denote  ministers  of  the  gospel  who  had  the  care  or 

11 


122  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

oversight  of  churches,  without  any  regard  to  grade 
or  rank.  (4.)  It  has  now,  as  used  by  Episcopalians, 
a  sense  which  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  New 
Testament,  and  which,  indeed,  is  entirely  at  vari- 
ance with  the  usage  there.  To  apply  the  term  to  a 
pretended  superior  order  of  clergy,  as  designating 
their  peculiar  office,  is  wholly  to  depart  from  the 
use  of  the  word  as  it  occurs  in  the  Bible.  (5.)  As 
it  is  never  used  in  the  Scriptures  with  reference  to 
prelates,  it  should  be  used  with  reference  to  the 
pastor  or  other  officers  of  the  church  j  and  to  be  a 
pastor  or  overseer  of  the  flock  of  Christ  should  be 
regarded  as  being  a  scriptural  bishop. 

I  have  now  considered  all  that  Episcopalians  rely 
on  from  the  Scriptures,  in  vindication  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  an  order  of  men  as  prelatical  bishops. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies 
on  them.  They  advance  a  claim  which  is  indispen- 
sable to  the  existence  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity. 
These  are  the  arguments  on  which  they  rely. 
Whether  these  arguments  authorize  the  tone  of  as- 
sumption which  we  not  unfrequently  hear;  whether 
they  are  such  as  to  justify  the  advocates  of  prelacy 
in  the  language  which  they  sometimes  use  when 
speaking  of  those  out  of  the  pale  of  their  denomina- 
tion, as  left  to  "the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God;" 
whether  they  are  such  as  to  prompt,  legitimately,  to 
a  very  frequent  reference  to  "the  primitive  and 
apostolic  order"  of  the  ministry,  or  to  the  modest 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  123 

use  of  the  term  "the  Church"  with  an  exclusive 
reference  to  themselves, — must  now  be  left  to  the 
judgment  of  my  readers. 

The  point  which  I  proposed  to  consider  in  regard 
to  the  claims  of  their  "bishop"  I  conceive  to  be 
settled.  If  Episcopalians  cannot  make  good  their 
pretensions  in  reference  to  this  office,  it  follows,  of 
course,  that  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  on  an 
equality.  The  whole  argument  is  concentrated  in 
this  claim.  We  take  our  stand  here.  It  is  admit- 
ted on  all  hands  that  there  is  somewhere  in  the 
church  a  right  to  ordain.  Episcopalians,  with  sin- 
gular boldness — in  not  a  few  instances  with  pro- 
fessed, and  in  all  with  real  exclusiveness — maintain 
that  this  power  lies  only  in  the  bishop.  They  ad- 
vance a  claim  to  certain  rights  and  powers;  and  if 
that  is  not  made  out,  the  argument  is  at  an  end. 
If,  from  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  they 
cannot  succeed  in  dividing  the  ministers  of  religion 
into  various  ranks  and  orders,  it  follows  that  they 
remain  on  an  equality. 

On  this  point,  also,  they  are  compelled,  as  we 
conceive,  to  admit  the  whole  of  our  argument.  So 
manifest  is  it  that  the  sacred  writers  knew  of  no 
such  distinction;  that  they  regarded  all  ministers  of 
the  gospel  as  on  a  level;  that  they  used  the  same 
name  in  describing  the  functions  of  all;  that  they 
addressed  all  as  having  the  same  episcopal  or  pas- 
toral supervision, — that  even  Episcopalians,  after  no 


124  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

small  reluctance,  are  compelled  at  last  to  admit  it. 
They  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  term 
hishop  in  the  New  Testament  does  not  in  a  single 
instance  designate  any  such  officer  as  now  claims 
exclusively  that  title.  Thus,  Dr.  Onderdonk  says 
that  "That  name  (bishop)  is  there  (i.  e.  in  the  New 
Testament)  given  to  the  middle  order  or  presbyters  ; 
and  ALL  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  con- 
cerning 'lishojjs'  (including  of  course  the  words 
'overseers'  and  i oversight]  which  have  the  same 
derivation)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  that 
middle  grade.  It  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that 
the  name  'bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order, 
and  appropriated  to  the  first."  Tract,  p.  12.  This 
admission  is  of  inestimable  value.  So  we  believe, 
and  so  we  teach.  We  insist,  therefore,  that  the 
name  bisliop  should  be  restored  to  its  primitive 
standing.  If  men  lay  claim  to  a  higher  rank  than 
is  properly  expressed  in  the  New  Testament  by  this 
word,  we  insist  that  they  should  assume  the  name 
apostles.  As  they  regard  themselves  as  the  "  suc- 
cessors" of  the  apostles,  as  they  claim  that  Timo- 
thy, Titus,  Andronicus,  and  Junia  were  apostles, 
why  should  not  the  name  be  retained  ?  The  Chris- 
tian community  could  then  better  appreciate  the 
force  of  their  claims,  and  understand  the  nature  of 
the  argument.  I  venture  to  say,  that  if  the  name 
"apostles''  were  assumed  by  those  who  claim  to  be 
their  successors,  the  Christian  world  would  soon  dis- 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  125 

abuse  itself  of  the  belief  of  the  scriptural  authority 
of  any  such  class  of  men.  "We  admit  that  if  "the 
thing  sought"  were  to  be 'found  in  the  Scriptures, 
it  would  not  be  worth  while  to  engage  in  a  contro- 
versy about  the  mere  name.  But  we  maintain  that 
the  fact  here  conceded  is  strong  presumptive  proof 
that  "the  thing  sought"  is  not  there.  The  name, 
therefore,  should  be  given  up,  for  it  is  conceded  by 
Episcopalians  that  it  does  not  anywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  designate  any  such  class  of  men  as 
are  now  clothed  with  the  episcopal  office. 

I  remark,  further,  that  the  thing  itself  is  practi- 
cally abandoned  by  Episcopalians  themselves;  and 
an  Episcopal  ordination  is,  in  fact,  merely  a  Presby- 
terian ordination  j  and  it  is  this  fact,  and  not  the 
fact  that  it  is  done  by  a  prelate  claiming  to  be  the 
"successor"  of  the  apostles,  which  gives  to  such  an 
ordination  all  its  validity,  for  even  ordination  is 
never  performed  in  the  Episcopal  Church  by  the 
"bishop"  alone.  In  the  "Form  and  Manner  of 
Ordering  Priests/'  the  following  direction  is  given : 
"The  bishop  with  the  priests  [presbyters]  present 
shall  lay  their  hands  severally  upon  the  head  of 
every  one  that  receiveth  the  order  of  priesthood; 
the  receivers  humbly  kneeling,  and  the  bishop  say- 
ing: Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  priest  in  the  church  of  God  now  com- 
mitted unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands." 
There  is  indeed  among  them  a  difference  of  opinion 

11* 


126  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

about  the  reason  why  this  is  done.  One  portion 
regards  the  bishop  as  the  only  source  of  authority.* 
Others  suppose  that  the  act  of  the  presbyters  ex- 
presses the  assent  and  confidence  of  the  churches. 
But,  whichever  opinion  is  maintained,  it  is,  in  fact, 
a  Presbyterian  ordination.  If  not,  it  is  an  unmean- 
ing and  idle  ceremony,  and  the  presence  of  the 
presbyters  is  mere  pageantry  and  pomp. 

Who  can  resist  the  impression,  that  if  the  New 
Testament  had  been  the  only  authority  appealed  to 
in  other  times,  Episcopacy  would  long  since  have 
ceased  to  urge  its  claims,  and  have  sunk  away  with 
other  unauthorized  dynasties  and  dominations  from 
the  notice  of  mankind?  On  the  basis  which  has 
been  now  examined,  this  vast  superstructure — this 
system  which  has  heretofore  spread  over  the  entire 
Christian  world — this  system  which  has  always  ad- 
vanced most  arrogant  claims,  has  been  reared.  The 
world,  for  ages,  has  been  summoned  to  submit  to 
various  modifications  of  the  episcopal  power.  The 
world,  with  the  single  exceptions  of  the  Waldenses 
and  Albigenses,  did  for  ages  submit  to  its  authority. 
The  prelatical  domination  rose  on  the  ruins  of  the 
liberties  of  cities,  states,  and  nations,  till  the  power 
of  the  whole  Christian  world  was  concentrated  in 
the  hands  of  one  man — "the  servant  of  the  servants 
of  God!"     The  exercise  of  that  power  in  his  hands 


*  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.,  book  vii.  §  6. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  l27 

is  well  known.  Equally  arrogant  have  been  its 
claims  in  other  modifications.  That  power  was  felt 
in  the  days  when  Puritan  piety  rose  to  bless  man- 
kind and  to  advance  just  notions  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty.  Streams  of  blood  have  flowed,  and 
tears  of  anguish  have  been  shed,  and  thousands  of 
holy  men  have  been  doomed  to  poverty,  want,  and 
imprisonment,  as  the  result  of  those  claims  to  supre- 
macy in  the  church  of  God.  It  may  surprise  those 
who  peruse  these  pages  to  learn  that  all  the  author- 
ity from  the  Bible  which  could  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  these  enormous  claims  has  now  been  sub- 
mitted to  their  observation.  Who  can  repress 
melancholy  emotions  at  the  thought  that  such  power 
has  been  claimed,  and  such  domination  exercised  by 
man,  on  so  slender  authority  as  this  ! 

It  does  not  accord  with  the  design  which  I  had  in 
view  in  this  argument  to  go  into  an  examination  of 
the  testimony  from  the  Fathers;  nor  into  an  inquiry 
into  the  question :  What  light  is  thrown  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  "  apostolical  succession"  from  the 
history  of  the  church?  It  is  perfectly  clear,  how- 
ever, that  there  are  two  points  which  it  is  incum- 
bent for  the  advocate  for  such  a  "succession"  to 
establish.  The  first  is,  to  demonstrate  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  New  Testament,  such  a  "  succession" 
was  designed.  That  point  has  been  examined. 
The  other  is,  to  adduce  positive  evidence  that  such 
a  succession  has  been  in  fact  maintained.     To  esta- 


128  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

blish  the  claim  of  prelacy,  one  of  these  points  is  as 
essential  as  the  other.  Without  departing,  there- 
fore, materially  from  the  design  which  I  had  in 
view,  and  in  order  to  show  how  utterly  untenable 
the  claims  of  prelates  are  to  any  such  "  succession" 
from  the  apostles,  I  may  here  remark,  that  should 
we  admit  all  that  Episcopalians  claim  on  the  Scrip- 
ture argument,  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof,  as  a 
matter  of  historical  record,  that  the  episcopal  office 
has  been  transmitted  from  prelate  to  prelate  to  the 
present  time,  but  that  the  pretended  line  has  been 
repeatedly  broken.  As  satisfactory  evidence,  I  ad- 
duce the  following  indisputable  facts : 

"We  are  informed  by  many  ancient  historians, 
and  very  expressly  by  Bede,  in  his  famous  Ecclesi- 
astical History,  'That  at  the  request  of  Oswald, 
King  of  Northumberland,  certain  presbyters  came 
(in  the  seventh  century)  from  Scotland  into  Eng- 
land, and  ordained  bishops;  that  the  abbot,  and 
other  presbyters  of  the  island  of  Hy,  sent  Aydan 
for  this  express  purpose,  declaring  him  to  be  worthy 
of  the  office  of  bishop,  and  that  he  ought  to  be  sent 
to  instruct  the  unbelieving  and  the  unlearned.'  He 
informs  us,  that  'those  presbyters  ordained  him  and 
sent  him  to  England  on  this  errand;  and  that  Finan, 
sent  from  the  same  monastery  in  the  same  island, 
succeeded  him  in  the  episcopal  office,  after  having 
been  ordained  by  the  Scottish  presbyters.' " 

Upon  this  testimony  of   Bede,  Baxter  remarks, 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  129 

"You  will  find  that  the  English  had  a  succession 
of  bishops  by  the  Scottish  presbyter's  ordination; 
and  there  is  no  mention  in  Bede  of  any  dislike 
or  scruple  of  the  lawfulness  of  this  course.  The 
learned  Dr.  Doddridge  refers  us  to  Bede  and  Jones 
to  substantiate  the  fact,  that  'the  ordination  of  Eng- 
lish bishops  cannot  be  traced  up  to  the  Church  of 
Home  as  its  original;  that  in  the  year  668,  the  suc- 
cessors of  Austin,  the  monk,  (who  came  over  A.  D. 
596,)  being  almost  extinct,  by  far  the  greater  part 
of  the  bishops  were  of  Scottish  ordination,  by  Ay- 
dan  and  Finan,  who  came  out  of  the  Culdee  monas- 
tery of  Columbanus,  and  were  no  more  than  'presby- 
ters? 

"And  is  it  verily  so,  that  the  episcopal  blood  was 
thus  early  and  extensively  contaminated  in  Eng- 
land? Is  it  verily  so,  that  when  the  effects  of  pious 
Austin's  labours  had  become  almost  imperceptible, 
the  sinking  church  was  revived  again  by  sending 
to  Scotland  for  presbyters  to  come  and  ordain  a  mul- 
titude of  bishops?  Then  it  is  verily  a  fact,  that 
Presbyterian  ordination  is  one  of  the  sturdiest  pillars 
that  support  the  vast  fabric  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. No  matter  if  only  ten  bishops  were  thus 
ordained,  the  contamination,  (if  it  be  one,)  having 
been  imparted  more  than  eleven  hundred  years  a<jo, 
has  had  a  long  time  to  diffuse  itself,  and  doubtless 
has  diffused  itself  so  extensively  from  bishop  to 
bishop,  that  not  a  single  prelate  in  Great  Britain 


130  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

can  prove  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection.  For 
what  one  of  them  can  tell  if  he  was  not  consecrated 
by  bishops,  who  were  themselves  consecrated  by 
bishops,  and  they  by  other  bishops,  to  whom  all  the 
ordaining  power  they  ever  had  was  transmitted 
from  the  presbyters  of  Scotland  ?  But  this  is  not 
the  whole  of  the  evil.  As  no  one  bishop  can  trace 
his  episcopal  pedigree  farther  back,  perhaps,  than 
two  or  three  centuries,  so  he  cannot  certainly  know 
that  any  presbyter  on  whose  head  he  has  imposed 
hands  has  received  from  him  any  thing  more  than 
Presbyterian  ordination.  Nor  is  this  all  the  evil. 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
America  are  in  the  same  plight;  for  all  their  author- 
ity came  from  England.  But  as  the  English  bish- 
ops who  gave  it  to  them  could  not  then,  and  cannot 
now,  certainly  tell  whence  it  came,  so  who  knows 
but  all  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  the  United  States  of 
America  are  originally  indebted  to  the  hands  of 
Elder  Aydan  and  Elder  Finan  for  all  their  minis- 
terial powers  ?  I  tremble  for  all  Protestant  Episco- 
pal churches  on  both  continents,  if  Presbyterian  or- 
dination be  not  valid  and  scriptural." 

The  point,  also,  that  there  may  be  a  lawful  ordi- 
nation without  a  "  bishop,"  is  expressly  conceded 
by  Hooker : 

"  Now  whereas  hereupon  some  do  infer  that  no 
ordination  can  stand  but  only  such  as  is  made  by 
bishops,  which  have  had  their  ordination  likewise 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  131 

by  other  bishops  before  thein,  till  we  come  to  the 
very  apostles  cf  Christ  themselves;  in  which  respect 
it  was  demanded  of  Beza  at  Poissie,  by  what  author- 
ity he  could  administer  the  holy  sacraments,  &c. : 
to  this  we  answer,  that  there  may  be  sometimes 
very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordination 
made  without  a  bishop." 

To  these  considerations  may  now  be  added  the 
remarkable  concession  of  Archbishop  Whately, 
showing  the  result  to  which  an  independent  and 
honest  man,  though  sustaining  the  highest  office  in 
the  Episcopal  Church,  is  constrained  to  come  as  the 
result  of  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  the  "  apostolical  succession  :" 

"Now,  what  is  the  degree  of  satisfactory  assurance 
that  is  thus  afforded  to  the  scrupulous  consciences 
of  any  members  of  an  Episcopal  church  ?  If  a  man 
consider  it  as  highly  probable  that  the  particular 
minister  at  whose  hands  he  receives  the  sacred  ordi- 
nances is  really  thus  apostolically  descended,  this  is 
the  very  utmost  point  to  which  he  can,  with  any 
semblance  of  reason,  attain  :  and  the  more  he  re- 
flects and  inquires,  the  more  cause  for  hesitation  he 
will  find.  There  is  not  a  minister  in  all  Christen- 
dom who  is  able  to  trace  up,  with  any  approach  to 
certainty,  his  own  spiritual  pedigree.  The  sacra- 
mental virtue  (for  such  it  is  that  is  implied — 
whether  the  term  be  used  or  not — in  the  principle 
I  have  been  speaking  of)  dependent  on  the  imposi- 


132  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

tion  of  hands,  with  a  due  observance  of  apostolical 
usages,  by  a  bishop,  himself  duly  consecrated,  after 
having  been  in  like  manner  baptized  into  the 
church,  and  ordained  deacon  and  priest — this  sacra- 
mental virtue,  if  a  single  link  of  the  chain  be  faulty, 
must,  on  the  above  principles,  be  utterly  nullified 
ever  after  in  respect  of  all  the  links  that  hang  on 
that  one.  For  if  a  bishop  has  not  been  duly  conse- 
crated, or  had  not  been  previously  rightly  ordained, 
his  ordinations  are  null ;  and  so  are  the  ministra- 
tions of  those  ordained  by  him,  and  their  ordination 
of  others,  (supposing  any  of  the  persons  ordained 
by  him  to  attain  to  the  episcopal  office,)  and  so  on, 
without  end.  The  poisonous  taint  of  informality, 
if  it  once  creep  in  undetected,  will  spread  the  in- 
fection of  nullity  to  an  indefinite  and  irremediable 
extent. 

"  And  who  can  undertake  to  pronounce  that 
during  that  long  period  usually  designated  the  Dark 
Ages  no  such  taint  ever  was  introduced  ?  Irregu- 
larities could  not  have  been  wholly  excluded  with- 
out a  perpetual  miracle ;  and  that  no  such  miracu- 
lous interference  existed,  we  have  even  historical 
prdof.  Amid  the  numerous  corruptions  of  doctrine 
and  of  practice,  and  gross  superstitions,  that  crept 
in  during  those  ages,  we  find  recorded  descriptions 
not  only  of  the  profound  ignorance  and  profligacy 
of  life  of  many  of  the  clergy,  but  also  of  the  grossest 
irregularities  in  respect  of  discipline  and  form.    We 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  133 

read  of  bishops  consecrated  when  mere  children ; 
of  men  officiating  who  barely  knew  their  letters; 
of  prelates  expelled  and  others  put  in  their  places 
by  violence  j  of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen  and 
habitual  drunkards  admitted  to  holy  orders;  and, 
in  short,  of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder 
and  reckless  disregard  of  the  decency  which  the 
apostle  enjoins.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one, 
even  moderately  acquainted  with  history,  can  feel  a 
certainty,  or  any  approach  to  certainty,  that  amid 
all  this  confusion  and  corruption,  every  requisite 
form  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  adhered  to  by 
men,  many  of  them  openly  profane  and  secular,  un- 
restrained by  public  opinion,  through  the  gross 
ignorance  of  the  population  among  which  they 
lived ;  and  that  no  one  duly  consecrated  or  ordained 
was  admitted  to  sacred  offices. 

"EvqjQ  in  later  and  more  civilized  and  enlightened 
times,  the  probability  of  an  irregularity,  though  very 
greatly  diminished,  is  yet  diminished  only,  and  not 
absolutely  destroyed.  Even  in  the  memory  of  per- 
sons living,  there  existed  a  bishop  concerning  whom 
there  was  so  much  mystery  and  uncertainty  pre- 
vailing as  to  when,  where,  and  by  whom  he  had 
been  ordained,  that  doubts  existed  in  the  mind  of 
many  persons  whether  he  had  ever  been  ordained 
at  all.  I  do  not  say  that  there  was  good  ground 
for  the  suspicion  j  but  I  speak  of  the  fact  that  it 
did  prevail,  and  that  the  circumstances  of  the  case 

12 


134  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

were  such  as  to  make  manifest  the  possibility  of 
such  an  irregularity  occurring  under  such  circum- 
stances. 

"  Now,  let  any  one  proceed  on  the  hypothesis 
that  there  are,  suppose,  but  a  hundred  links  con- 
necting any  particular  minister  with  the  apostles ; 
and  let  him  even  suppose  that  not  above  one-half 
of  this  number  pass  through  such  periods  as  admit 
of  any  possible  irregularity ;  and  then,  placing  at  the 
lowest  estimate  the  probability  of  defectiveness  in  re- 
spect of  each  of  the  remaining  fifty,  taken  separately, 
let  him  consider  what  amount  of  probability  will 
result  from  the  multiplying  of  the  whole  together.* 
The  ultimate  consequence  must  be,  that  any  one 
who  sincerely  believes  that  his  claim  to  the  benefits 
of  the  gospel  covenant  depends  on  his  own  minis- 
ter's claim  to  the  supposed  sacramental  virtue  of 
true  ordination,  and  this,  again,  on  perfect  apos- 
tolical succession,  as  above  described,  must  be  in- 
volved— in  proportion  as  he  reads,  and  inquires,  and 
reflects,  and  reasons  on  the  subject — in  the  most 
distressing  doubt  and  perplexity. 

"  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  advocates 

*  Supposing  it  to  be  one  hundred  to  one,  in  each  separate 
case,  in  favour  of  the  legitimacy  and  regularity  of  the  trans- 
mission, and  the  links  to  amount  to  fifty,  (or  any  other  num- 
ber,) the  probability  of  the  unbroken  continuity  of  the  whole 
chain  must  be  computed  as  ffo  of  ffo  of  T9g9ff,  <fcc,  to  the  end 
of  the  whole  fifty. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  135 

of  this  theory  studiously  disparage  reasoning,  de- 
precate all  exercise  of  the  mind  in  reflection,  decry 
appeals  to  evidence,  and  lament  that  even  the 
power  of  reading  should  be  imparted  to  the  people. 
It  is  not  without  cause  that  they  dread  and  lament 
'  an  age  of  too  much  light,'  and  wish  to  involve  re- 
ligion in  l  a  solemn  and  awful  gloom.'*  It  is  not 
without  cause  that,  having  removed  the  Christian's 
confidence  from  a  rock  to  base  it  on  sand,  they 
forbid  all  prying  curiosity  to  examine  their  foun- 
dation. 

"  The  fallacy,  indeed,  by  which,  according  to  the 
above  principles,  the  Christian  is  taught  to  rest  his 
own  personal  hopes  of  salvation  on  the  individual 
claims  to  '  apostolical  succession'  of  the  particular 
minister  he  is  placed  under,  is  one  so  gross,  that 
few  are  thoughtless  enough  to  be  deceived  by  it  in 
any  case  where  religion  is  not  concerned — where,  in 
short,  a  man  has  not  been  taught  to  make  a  virtue 
of  uninquiring,  unthinking  acquiescence.  For  the 
fallacy  consists  in  confounding  together  the  un- 
broken apostolical  succession  of  a  Christian  ministry 
generally,  and  the  same  succession  in  an  unbroken 
line  of  this  or  that  individual  minister.  The  exist- 
ence of  such  an  order  of  men  as  Christian  minis- 
ters, continuously  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to 
this  day,  is  perhaps  as  complete  a  moral  certainty 


136  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

as  any  historical  fact  can  be ;    because   (indepen- 
dently of  the  various  incidental  notices  by  histo- 
rians of  such  a  class  of  persons)  it  is  plain  that  if, 
at  the  present  day,  or  a  century  ago,  or  ten  centu- 
ries  ago,   a  number  of  men  had  appeared  in  the 
world,  professing  (as  our  clergy  do  now)  to  hold  a 
recognised  office  in  a  Christian  church,  to  which 
they  had  been  regularly  appointed  as  successors  to 
others,    whose    predecessors,    in    like  manner,   had 
held  the   same,  and  so  on,  from  the  times  of  the 
apostles — if,  I  say,  such  a  pretence  had  been  put 
forth  by  a  set  of  men  assuming  an  office  which  no 
one  had  ever  heard  of  before — it  is  plain  that  they 
would   at    once   have   been   refuted  and  exposed. 
And  as  this  will  apply  equally  to  each  successive 
generation  of  Christian  ministers,  till  we  come  up 
to   the  time  when  the  institution  was  confessedly 
new — that  is,  to  the-  time  when  Christian  ministers 
were  appointed  by  the  apostles,  who  professed  them- 
selves eye-witnesses  of  the   resurrection — we  have 
(as  Leslie*  has  remarked)  a  standing  monument,  in 
the  Christian  ministry,  of  the  fact  of  that  event  as 
having  been  proclaimed  immediately  after  the  time 
when  it  was  said  to  have  occurred.     This,  there- 
fore, is  fairly  brought  forward  as  an  evidence  of  its 
truth. 

"  But  if  each  man's  Christian  hope  is  made  to 

*  Short  Method  with  Deists. 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  137 

rest  on  his  receiving  the  Christian  ordinances  at  the 
hands  of  a  minister  to  whom  the  sacramental  virtue 
that  gives  efficacy  to  those  ordinances  has  been 
transmitted  in  unbroken  succession  from  hand  to 
hand,  every  thing  must  depend  on  that  particular 
minister;  and  his  claim  is  by  no  means  established 
from  our  merely  establishing  the  uninterrupted 
existence  of  such  a  class  of  men  as  Christian  minis- 
ters. '  You  teach  me/  a  man  might  say,  '  that  my 
salvation  depends  on  the  possession  by  you — the 
particular  pastor  under  whom  I  am  placed — of  a 
certain  qualification  j  and  when  I  ask  for  the  proof 
that  you  possess  it,  you  prove  to  me  that  it  is  pos- 
sessed generally  by  a  certain  class  of  persons,  of 
whom  you  are  one,  and  probably  by  a  large  majority 
of  them  V  How  ridiculous  it  would  be  thought,  if 
a  man  laying  claim  to  the  throne  of  some  country 
should  attempt  to  establish  it,  without  producing 
and  proving  his  own  pedigree,  merely  by  showing 
that  that  country  had  always  been  under  hereditary 
regal  government!"* 

The  following  decisive  remarks  of  Whately  are  in 
exact  accordance  with  the  conclusion  to  which  we 
have  been  led  by  this  investigation  :  u  Successors 
in  the  apostolic  office  the  apostles  have  none.  As 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  as  dispensers  of  mira- 
culous gifts,  as  inspired  oracles  of  divine   revela- 


*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  §  29. 
12* 


138  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

tion,  they  have  NO  SUCCESSORS.  But  as  members, 
as  ministers,  as  governors  of  Christian  communi- 
ties, their  successors  are  the  regularly  admitted 
members,  the  lawfully  ordained  ministers,  the  regu- 
lar and  recognised  governors  of  a  regularly  subsist- 
ing CJiristian  chuirh."* 

Sect.  2. —  The  Rite  of  Confirmation. 
The  second  claim  in  behalf  of  the  "bishop" 
which  is  advanced  by  Episcopalians  is,  that  to  him 
appertains  exclusively  the  office  of  administering 
the  rite  of  confirmation.  "  Episcopacy  declares 
that  the  Christian  ministry  was  established  in  three 
orders;  called,  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  bishops, 
presbyters  or  elders,  and  deacons;  of  which  the 
highest  only  has  the  right  to  ordain  and  confirm." 
Tract  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  p.  11.  Having  examined 
the  question  whether  there  is  contemplated  in  the 
New  Testament  the  existence  of  an  order  of  men  of 
"  superior  grade  and  rank,"  who  should  be  regarded 
as  peculiarly  the  "  successors"  of  the  apostles,  and 
to  whom  was  to  be  intrusted  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, or  of  transmitting  the  office  of  the  ministry, 
the  next  question  is,  whether,  on  the  supposition 
that  there  is  to  be  such  a  body  of  men,  the  claim 
which  is  set  up  in  their  behalf,  that  they  have  the 
exclusive  right  to  administer  the  rite  of  confirma- 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  $  43. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  139 

tion,  is  well  founded.  The  inquiry,  as  in  the  for- 
mer instance,  will  be  confined  wholly  to  the  New 
Testament. 

The  first  question,  of  course,  relates  to  the  nature 
of  this  claim,  or  what  is  intended  by  it  by  Episco- 
palians themselves.  The  nature  of  this  rite  is  thus 
stated  :  "  It  is  a  confirmation  or  ratification  on  the 
part  of  those  who  receive  it  of  their  baptismal  en- 
gagements, and  a  confirmation  or  renewal  by  Al- 
mighty God  of  all  the  privileges  of  their  baptism.."* 
"  They  [the  bishops]  are  to  confirm  all  who  have 
repented  and  been  made  disciples  through  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  (baptism,)  by  laying  their 
hands  upon  them,  and  invoking  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  they  may  continue  Christ's  faithful  sol- 
diers and  servants  to  their  lives'  end,  as  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  did  upon  the  disciples  in  Saniaria."f 
"  The  word  confirmation  is  applied  to  the  religious 
rite  of  laying  on  of  hands,  because  the  young  per- 
son then  confirms  and  ratifies,  in  his  own  person, 
the  vows  which  had  been  made  for  him  at  baptism ; 
and  the  bishop  confirms  and  strengthens  him  in  his 
pious  resolutions,  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of 
hands.     The  simple  design  of  it  is,  that  those  who 

*  See  Religious  Tracts,  No.  110,  published  by  the  Episcopal 
Female  Tract  Society  of  Philadelphia,  and  "  The  Candidate 
for  Confirmation  Instructed,"  by  Bishop  Hobart,  p.  4. 

f  "  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles." 
Sermon  by  Bishop  McCoskry,  p.  45. 


140  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

have  been  devoted  to  God  in  infancy  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism,  may,  when  they  come  to  years  of 
discretion,  take  upon  themselves  the  solemn  engage- 
ments which  were  made  for  them  by  their  godfathers 
and  godmothers,  by  a  public  and  direct  acknow- 
ledgment and  confirmation  of  their  baptismal  cove- 
nant with  God,  before  the  bishop  and  the  whole 
church  j  and  that  they  may  receive  the  benefit  of 
public  prayer  and  episcopal  benediction,  with  the 
ancient  and  scriptural  rite  of  laying  on  of  hands, 
in  order  that  they  may  be  so  confirmed  and 
strengthened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  to  be  enabled 
to  perform  their  vows  and  adorn  their  Christian 
profession,  and  may  be  afterward  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  table,  as  complete  members  of  the  visible 
church/'* 

In  these  accounts  of  the  nature  and  design  of  this 
rite,  probably  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  would 
agree.  If  some  who  are  called  "  high  churchmen" 
should  attach  a  higher  efficacy  to  it,  and  should 
claim  for  it  that  it  is  necessarily,  when  properly  ad- 
ministered, connected  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  still  it  would  be  unfair  to  ascribe  this  belief 
to  all  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  or  even  to  represent 
it  as  the  common  opinion.  All  persons  have  a 
right  to  state  their  own  belief,  and  it  is  illegitimate 

*  Address  to  Young  Persons  about  to  be  Confirmed.  By 
Daniel  Wilson,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Calcutta.  Philadelphia,  1842. 
Pp.  6,  7. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH-  141 

in  an  argument  to  attribute  to  them  more  than  they 
profess  to  hold.  The  account  here  given  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  this  rite,  will  be  the  one  that 
will  be  kept  in  view  in  the  inquiry  respecting  its 
scriptural  authority. 

It  is  claimed  for  this  rite  by  all  Episcopalians 
that  it  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible ;  and 
it  is  in  this  view  only  that  it  becomes  a  subject  of 
inquiry  in  this  argument.  Thus,  Bishop  Wilson 
says  :  "  This  rite  is  derived  from  the  practice  of  the 
apostles.  We  are  informed,  that  when  the  inha- 
bitants of  Samaria  had  been  converted  and  bap- 
tized, and  had  received  the  word  of  God,  the 
apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  were  sent  to  lay 
their  hands  on  these  new  converts,  that  they  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  viii.  14-17.  And 
the  disciples  of  Ephesus,  after  they  had  been  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus,  were  confirmed  by  St. 
Paul,  who  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  and  they  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  xix.  1-7.  It  seems 
evident  that  the  apostle  Paul  alludes  to  the  conti- 
nuance of  this  rite,  as  an  ordinary  means  of  strength- 
ening the  faith  of  Christians,  by  joining  it  with 
baptism,  and  describing  both  as  among  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God.  Heb.  v.  12 ;  vi. 
1,  2."  Pp.  7,  8.  "The  rank  which  the  'laying 
on  of  hands'  holds  in  this  verse,  (Heb.  vi.  1,  2,) 
among  'the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,' 
proves  that  it  refers  to  confirmation.     Imposition 


142  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

of  hands  was  indeed  employed  in  conveying  the 
ministerial  authority;  and  by  the  same  ceremony 
the  sick  were  healed  and  pious  and  holy  men  in- 
voked blessings  on  the  objects  of  their  regard. 
These  acts  cannot,  however,  be  denoted  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  to  which  the  apostle  refers ;  which, 
being  stated  as  a  '  principle  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ/  must  refer  to  all  Christians.  But  these 
acts  related  not  to  all  Christians :  only  to  the  mi- 
nistry, who,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  received 
the  ministerial  authority ;  to  the  sick,  who,  by  this 
rite,  were  healed ;  or  to  the  individuals  on  whom,  by 
this  ceremony,  pious  men  invoked  blessings.  These 
acts,  therefore,  of  the  imposition  of  hands,  could 
not  be  ranked  among  the  '  principles  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ'  in  the  same  station  with  '  repent- 
ance,' with  '  faith/  with  '  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead/  and  with  <a  judgment  to  come.'  We  must, 
therefore,  refer  this  appellation  to  that  rite  which 
universally  prevailed  in  the  primitive  church,  and 
which  is  known  in  modern  times  by  the  name  of 
confirmation."* 

These  quotations  settle  the  point — which,  indeed, 
there  would  he  no  hesitation  in  admitting — that,  in 
the  estimation  of  Episcopalians,  this  rite  rests  on 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.     It  is  practised  not 

*  Bishop  Hobart,  "  The  Candidate  for  Confirmation  In- 
structed," pp.  4-6.  See  also  the  Tract  on  Confirmation,  pp.  5,  6, 
and  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.>  vol.  i.  pp.  658-666. 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  143 

as  a  mere  matter  of  expediency,  not  as  a  ceremony 
of  human  prudence,  but  as  directed  by  the  word  of 
God.  It  is  claimed,  also,  that  it  is  a  rite  not  to  be 
performed  by  all  the  ministers  of  religion,  but  ex- 
clusively by  prelates  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles, 
and  as  being  one  of  the  objects  for  which  there  is 
continued  in  the  church,  from  age  to  age,  a  rank  of 
clergy  of  superior  "  order."  It  is  only  with  refer- 
ence to  this  question  that  it  is  proposed  now  to 
examine  it.  Were  it  a  mere  matter  of  human  pru- 
dence— a  regulation  which  experience  had  shown  to 
be  useful — a  decent  and  solemn  form  of  admission 
into  the  church  adopted  by  Episcopalians — no  more 
objection  could  lie  against  it  than  against  any  of  the 
forms  adopted  by  other  denominations  in  admitting 
members  to  their  communion.  All  churches  have^ 
found  it  desirable  to  prescribe  some  method  by  which 
the  profession  of  faith  shall  be  indicated,  or  by 
which  candidates  shall  be  admitted  to  their  fellow- 
ship; and,  in  itself  considered,  the  method  of  ad- 
mitting them  by  what  is  called  "confirmation" — by 
a  public  presentation  before  the  church  and  congre- 
gation— by  reverent  kneeling — and  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  the  hands  of  a  pastor,  and  by  prayer — would 
be  as  solemn  and  appropriate  as  any  other  method, 
and  might  be  adopted  without  endangering  either 
the  orthodoxy  or  the  spirituality  of  any  church. 
But  when  the  claim  is  set  up  to  scriptural  authority 
in   the   case,    the   subject   assumes   quite   another 


144  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

aspect.  Then  it  is  taken  out  of  the  inquiries  re- 
lating to  human  prudence  and  expediency,  and 
placed  on  the  basis  of  obligation.  Then,  if  this 
claim  is  substantiated,  it  is  binding  not  only  on 
Episcopalians,  but  on  all  who  profess  to  be  Chris- 
tians ;  and  then  also  the  churches  which  do  not 
admit  the  regulation  are  guilty  of  renouncing  one 
of  the  rites  appointed  by  the  Redeemer,  and  the  in- 
dividuals who  are  connected  with  those  churches 
are  excluded  from  one  of  the  important  means  of 
grace  appointed  by  him  to  promote  the  spirituality 
and  the  comfort  of  his  people.  For  the  vindication, 
then,  of  those  churches,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  those  who  have  been  admitted  to  the 
church  without  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  a 
"bishop/'  are  not  guilty  of  violating  the  rules  of 
the  great  Head  of  the  church,  I  propose  to  demon- 
strate that  this  claim  of  scriptural  authority  for  the 
rite  of  confirmation  is  wholly  unfounded. 

Before  proceeding  to  examine  the  authorities  re- 
lied on,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark  that  no  argu- 
ment can  be  derived  from  the  use  of  the  English 
word  "confirm"  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  said 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas  that  they  went  to  "  Lystra, 
and  to  Iconium,  and  to  Antioch,  confirming — • 
litLffTTipilovres — the  souls  of  the  disciples,  and  ex- 
horting them  to  continue  in  the  faith. "  Acts  xiv. 
22.  And  again  of  Paul,  that  "  he  went  through 
Syria   and    Cilicia    confirming  —  l-iarypi^wv — the 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  145 

churches."    Acts  xv.  41.     So  of  Judas  and  Silas  it 
is  said,   that   "  being    prophets    themselves,"    they 
M  exhorted  the  brethren  with  many  words,  and  con- 
firmed— hcsonjpgeut — them."  Acts  xv.   32.       The 
word   here   used  occurs  in   no   other  places  in  the 
New   Testament  than  those  just  referred    to,   and 
means,  properly,  to  " set  or  place  firmly  upon,  to  let 
lean  upon."   (Robinson's  Lexicon.)     The  essential 
idea  in  the  word  is  that  of  strengthening  or  impart- 
ing strength,  confirming  or  upholding  that  which  is 
feeble,  &c.     The  word  as  so  used  has  no  reference 
to  any  particular  rite  of  religion.     Nothing  is  said 
or  intimated  of  the  act  of  confirmation  being  done 
by  the  imposition  of  hands,  nor  is  there  the  slightest 
reason  to  suppose  that  this  was  practised  in  the 
cases  referred  to.     All  that  the  word  fairly  implies 
is,  that  it  was  done  by  instruction,  counsel,  exhorta- 
tion, and  prayer.     The  truth  was,  that  these  were 
young  converts ;  that  they  were  surrounded  by  ene- 
mies, and  exposed  to  temptation ;  that  they  had  as 
yet  but  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  gospel ;  and 
that  it  was  therefore  important  that  they  should  be 
further  instructed  and  established  in  the  faith  of 
Christianity.     There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence 
that  they  had  not  been  admitted  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  church  before,  or  that  any  ceremony 
whatever   was   now    performed    in    confirming    or 
strengthening  them.     Whatever  may  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  this  rite,  these  passages  will  not  be  claimed 

13 


146  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

in  its  defence  by  intelligent  Episcopalians.  But 
these  are  all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  the  English  word  "  confirm"  is  used,  where 
it  could  possibly  be  supposed  to  have  reference  to 
this  rite;  and  these  are  never  adduced  by  intelli- 
gent Episcopalians  as  furnishing  any  support  for  it. 

In  examining  the  claim  for  the  scriptural  authority 
for  confirmation,  and  the  question  whether  it  should 
be  retained  in  the  church  as  a  religious  rite,  I  sub- 
mit the  following  remarks  : — 

(1.)  In  the  New  Testament,  the  act  of  laying  on 
of  hands,  appealed  to  in  support  of  this  claim,  was 
uniformly  connected  with  imparting  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  apostles  did  lay 
their  hands  on  the  disciples  which  they  made,  or  on 
young  converts,  is  indisputable ;  but  the  design  was 
specific,  and  is  mentioned  in  each  case.  And  yet 
there  are  but  two  instances  of  the  "  laying  on  of 
hands"  on  converts  to  the  Christian  faith  referred 
to  in  the  New  Testament,  in  both  of  which  there 
need  be  no  possible  danger  of  mistaking  the  object 
and  the  effect,  and  in  neither  of  them  is  the  effect 
stated  which  is  claimed  for  the  rite  of  "  confirma- 
tion." The  first  occurs  in  Acts  viii.  14-17:  "Now 
when  the  apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard 
that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God,  they 
sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John ;  who,  when  they 
were  come  down,  prayed  for  them  that  they  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost :  for  as  yet  he  was  fallen 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  147 

upon  none  of  them;  only  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Then  they  laid 
their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Now,  the  only  material  question  in  regard 
to  this  passage  as  a  proof-text  for  the  rite  of  con-- 
firmation  is,  whether  it  refers  to  "  the  ordinary  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life,"  (Bishop 
Hobart,)  or  whether  it  refers  to  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  were  manifested  in  some  visible 
or  outward  mode.  If  it  refer  to  the  former,  it  is  a 
legitimate  proof-text  to  be  used  in  defence  of  this 
rite ;  if  to  the  latter,  then  it  proves  nothing  to  the 
purpose,  unless  it  be  maintained  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  always  miraculously  imparted  to  those  who 
receive  "  confirmation"  from  the  hand  of  the  bishop. 
That  the  imposition  of  the  hands  referred  to  was 
accompanied  with  an  imparting  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  a  miraculous  or  public  manner,  is  evident  from 
the  narrative,  (a)  It  is  that  which  the  language 
used  would  naturally  express.  Thus,  it  is  said, 
"  As  yet  he  teas  fallen  upon  none  of  them," — lan- 
guage which  naturally  suggests  the  remarkable  oc- 
currences on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Holy 
Spirit  descended  in  a  public  and  visible  manner, 
conferring  the  miraculous  endowment  of  being  able 
to  speak  foreign  languages.  It  is  not  such  lan- 
guage as  would  properly  denote  the  ordinary  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit  in  converting  the  soul,  or  that 


148  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

tl  ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life."  (6)  That 
it  was  accompanied  with  some  remarkable  power  or 
outward  manifestation — something  of  the  nature  of 
miracle,  either  enabling  them  to  work  miracles  or 
to  speak  with  new  tongues — is  manifest  from  the 
effect  which  it  had  on  Simon  Magus,  who  witnessed 
it :  "  And  when  Simon  saw  that  through  laying  on 
of  the  apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he 
offered  them  money,  saying,  Give  me  also  this  power, 
that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands  he  may  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Verses  18,  19.  Now,  it  is  evident 
that  there  must  have  been  some  visible  manifesta- 
tion, some  outward  power,  which  Simon  supposed 
would  be  of  value  to  him  in  carrying  on  a  system 
of  fraud  and  deception — something  which  he  would 
be  willing  to  "  purchase"  if  possible,  as  constituting 
a  valuable  capital  in  exerting  an  influence  over 
men.  Whatever  this  was,  it  must  have  been  some- 
thing besides  the  "  ordinary  grace  which  is  neces- 
sary to  enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual 
life."  It  must  have  been  more  than  is  conferred 
now  in  the  rite  of  confirmation ;  for  what  power  or 
influence  is  conferred  now  by  the  "  apostolical 
bishop"  in  this  rite  which  a  man  who  wished  to 
exert  an  influence  over  his  fellow-men  would  de- 
sire to  purchase  ?  What  would  excite  greater 
wonder  than  for  a  man  with  the  spirit  and  design 
of  Simon  Magus — wishing  to  obtain  some  powerful 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  149 

agency  not  possessed  by  others  for  the  purpose  of 
fraud  and  imposture — to  approach  a  prelate  after 
he  had  administered  this  rite  to  a  company,  of  dis- 
ciples "  properly  instructed,"  and  deliberately  pro- 
pose to  purchase  this  remarkable  power?  Would 
such  a  prelate  understand  precisely  what  it  was  that 
he  desired  to  purchase?  It  need  only  be  added, 
on  this  passage,  that  whatever  was  conferred  on  the 
disciples  of  Samaria,  from  any  thing  that  appears  in 
the  narrative,  was  conferred  on  them  all.  There  is 
no  reason  whatever  to  suppose,  as  Bishop  Hobart 
does,  (p.  6,)  that  these  remarkable  endowments 
were  conferred  on  one  part,  and  that  on  the  other 
the  ordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  only  were  be- 
stowed. Of  any  such  distinction,  the  sacred  writer 
has  not  thought  proper  to  give  us  any  information ; 
and  that  there  was  such  a  distinction  should  not  be 
assumed  in  an  argument  to  defend  the  scriptural 
authority  of  this  rite. 

The  only  other  case  appealed  to  in  defence  of  this 
rite  is  in  Acts  xix.  1—7,  where  the  narrative  is 
equally  clear  and  decisive.  It  is  that  of  the  dis- 
ciples at  Ephesus.  When  Paul  came  there,  he 
asked  them  whether  they  had  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  They  replied,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  They 
had  been  baptized,  they  said,  "unto  John's  bap- 
tism;" and  after  now  being  bajitized  "  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  it  is  added,  "  and  when  Paul 

13* 


150  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  on  them  j  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and 
prophesied."  Here  it  is  expressly  affirmed  that 
the  miraculous  endowment  of  speaking  foreign  lan- 
guages was  conferred  on  them,  and  evidently  on 
them  all,  for  there  is  no  distinction  made  among 
them.  There  is  no  intimation  whatever  that  it  was 
a  rite  designed  merely  to  confirm  them  in  "  the 
ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten  and 
aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life,"  or  that  it  was 
to  be  continued  as  an  ordinance  in  the  church.  So 
far  as  these  cases  go,  they  demonstrate  merely  the 
fact  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  miraculous  in- 
fluences, was  conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  apostles,  and  by  them  only. 

These  are  the  only  cases  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  only  facts  appealed  to,  to  show  that  the  "rite 
of  confirmation"  is  scriptural  in  its  character  and 
authority,  and  is  to  be  continued  in  the  church. 
There  is  no  intimation  whatever  that  it  was  a  mere 
rite  of  religion  for  establishing  Christians  in  the  be- 
lief of  the  truth,  or  for  admitting  members  to  the 
communion,  or  that  there  would  be  any  special  effi- 
cacy or  benefit  in  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
"  successors"' of  the  apostles. 

Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  simple  justice  to  demand 
that,  if  these  cases  are  appealed  to,  it  should  be  just 
as  they  occurred.  It  should  be  to  prove,  that  by 
the  "laying  on  of  the  hands"   of  the  "bishops," 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  151 

there  will  be  imparted  some  remarkable  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  which  can  properly  be  spoken  of  as 
"falling  upon"  those  who  receive  it,  and  which  is 
so  visible  and  manifest,  that  a  bad  man  might  deem 
it  desirable  to  "  purchase"  it,  if  he  could,  in  order 
to  exert  an  influence  over  his  fellow-men ;  and  that 
there  is,  in  fact,  imparted,  in  each  case,  the  "gift 
of  tongues"  and  the  power  of  "  prophesying." 
These  texts  would  be  entirely  pertinent  and  un- 
answerable to  prove  those  points ;  but  how  do  they 
prove  another  and  quite  a  foreign  thing — a  thing 
that  has  no  resemblance  to  this — that  the  "bishop" 
has  the  right  of  laying  on  his  hands  to  impart  the 
"ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life"  ?  They 
prove  one  thing  only — that  in  certain  cases  the 
laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  was  accompanied 
with  the  miraculous  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Is 
this  conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's 
hands?  If  so,  the  passages,  as  proof-texts,  are  in 
point ;  if  not,  why  are  they  adduced  ?  Whatever 
may  be  the  force  of  other  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  rite  of  confirmation,  it  is  respectfully  insisted 
on  that  these  texts — referring  to  the  only  facts  on 
the  subject  in  the  New  Testament — prove  nothing. 
(2.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  passage  so 
often  appealed  to  by  Episcopalians  in  support  of 
confirmation  in  Heb.  vi.  1,  2,  has  any  reference  to 
that  rite  as  now  practised,  or  that  it  furnishes  any 


152  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

authority  for  it :  "  Therefore,  leaving  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfec- 
tion ;  not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance 
from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the 
doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands, 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment."  This  passage  is  often  referred  to,  as 
the  quotations  already  made  are,  as  if  it  were  indis- 
putable that  it  must  refer  to  that  rite  of  religion, 
and  as  if  it  needed  no  further  proof  than  a  mere  re- 
ference to  it  in  order  to  remove  all  doubts  on  the 
subject.  But  a  few  considerations  will  show  that 
it  cannot  with  propriety  be  adduced  as  a  proof-text 
to  demonstrate  that  the  rite  of  confirmation  is  to  be 
of  perpetual  observance  in  the  church.  First,  the 
laying  on  of  hands  was  practised  among  the  He- 
brews, and  by  the  apostles  themselves,  on  a  great 
variety  of  occasions,  and  with  no  exclusive  reference 
to  the  rite  of  confirmation.  It  occurred  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases :  when  a  blessing  was  imparted  to 
any  one,  (Gen.  xlviii.  14,  18;)  when  prayer  was 
offered  for  one;  and  when  sacrifice  was  offered, 
accompanied  with  the  confession  of  sin.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  hands  were  laid  on  the  head  of  the 
victim,  and  confession  was  made  that  he  who  had 
sinned  deserved  punishment.  Lev.  xvi.  21;  xxiv. 
14;  Num.  viii.  12.  It  was  also  done  on  solemn 
consecration  to  office,  as  in  setting  apart  the  high- 
priest  to   his  office.     In   the  New  Testament,  the 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCIT.  153 

custom  is  referred  to  in  the  following  cases :  — 
(a)  The  Redeemer  laid  his  hands  on  children  to  bless 
them,  and  on  the  sick  when  he  healed  them.  Matt. 
xix.  13;  Mark  v.  23;  Matt.  ix.  18.  (b)  The  apos- 
tles, in  like  manner,  laid  their  hands  on  others  in 
healing  the  sick.  Acts  xxviii.  8.  (c)  In  ordination 
to  office,  1  Tim.  v.  22;  Acts  vi.  6;  and  (cl)  In  im- 
parting the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  cases  already  re- 
ferred to.  Acts  viii.  17,  19;  xix.  6.  Now,  in  not 
one  of  these  cases  is  the  precise  thing  intended 
which  is  denoted  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  a 
prelatical  bishop  in  confirmation,  as  connected  with 
the  "ordinary  grace  which  is  necessary  to  enlighten 
and  aid  Christians  in  the  spiritual  life."  That  rite 
corresponds  neither  with  the  act  of  a  patriarch  in 
imparting  a  blessing  to  his  children;  nor  to  the 
offering  of  a  sacrifice;  nor  to  the  consecration  of  a 
priest;  nor  to  the  act  of  Christ's  blessing  little  chil- 
dren; nor  to  the  healing  of  the  sick;  nor  to  an 
ordination  to  office;  nor  to  the  imparting  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  miraculous  manner.  It  is  a  new 
idea,  wholly  unknown  to  any  use  of  the  phrase  as 
employed  in  the  New  Testament.  By  what  author- 
ity is  this  new  idea  attached  to  a  scriptural  phrase  ? 
and  by  what  form  of  reasoning  is  it,  then,  urged  that 
this  rite  is  of  divine  appointment,  and  is  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  churches  as  of  divine  obligation? 

Further:  if  the  phrase  had  been  so  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  there  were  any  instances  in 


154  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

which  it  could  be  shown  that  it  was  employed  as  it 
is  now  by  Episcopalians,  it  is  natural  to  ask,  On  what 
principles  of  interpretation  it  is  held  that  this  must 
be  the  manner  in  which  it  is  used  in  Ileb.  vi.  2? 
The  apostle  is  speaking  of  certain  elementary  truths 
or  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  the  enu- 
meration he  speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  "  baptisms, 
and  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead."  He  refers  to  these  things  as  im- 
portant to  be  held  in  regard  to  the  faith  and  the 
order  of  the  Christian  church.  The  doctrine  of  the 
laying  on  of  hands  is  an  important  and  elementary 
principle;  a  doctrine  that  is  to  be  held.  But  why 
shall  we  infer  that  it  must  refer  to  "confirmation"? 
Why  may  it  not  refer  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  in 
healing  the  sick,  or  in  ordination,  or  in  the  bestow- 
ing of  the  miraculous  endowments  of  the  Holy 
Spirit?  Were  not  these  important  and  well-under- 
stood things,  which  it  was  desirable  to  maintain,  and 
which  were  conceded  to  be  so  important  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  dwell  further  upon  them?  Why, 
of  all  the  cases  in  which  the  laying  on  of  hands 
was  used,  is  this  selected  as  being  indubitably  what 
the  apostle  intended  in  the  case? 

Again,  if  it  be  supposed  that  the  order  in  which 
these  things  are  mentioned  is  such  as  to  demand 
that  it  shall  be  understood  of  some  rite  of  religion 
that  immediately  succeeded  baptism,  then  I  observe, 
that  it  should  be  held  just  as  it  was.     The  apostles 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  155 

did  lay  their  hands  on  young  converts  after  they 
were  baptized,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  was  imparted  to 
them.  Acts  viii.  xix.  But  it  was  the  miraculous 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  imparted;  and 
the  passage  before  us  should  be  used  only  to  de- 
monstrate that.  That  fact  was  of  sufficient  import- 
ance for  the  apostle  to  mention  it  in  this  connection 
as  one  of  the  great  things  connected  with  the  Chris- 
tian religion — a  thing  so  well  understood  then,  that 
he  did  not  think  it  important  to  dwell  upon  it. 

It  should  be  further  added,  that  the  Saviour  ap- 
pointed no  such  institution  of  his  religion  for  per- 
petual observance  in  the  church.  He  instituted 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  required  them 
to  be  observed  at  all  times;  but  there  is  no  intima- 
tion that  he  designated  any  such  rite  as  that  of 
"  confirmation"  to  be  observed  in  his  church.  This 
consideration  is  important  to  show  that  he  did  not 
design  that  this  should  be  a  permanent  ordinance 
of  his  religion.  Since  he  so  particularly  specified 
baptism  and  the  supper,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
should  have  wholly  omitted  any  reference  to  the 
rite  of  "  confirmation, "  if  he  had  intended  that  it 
should  be  observed  permanently  in  the  churches. 

The  sum  of  all  that  is  said  on  this  passage  is, 
that  if  it  is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  im- 
parting of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  imposition  of  hands 
after  baptism,  it  should  be  employed  just  as  it  was 
— just  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  then  understood 


156  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

The  only  instances  in  which  it  was  used  in  such  a 
connection,  were  in  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a 
miraculous  manner.  If  Episcopal  bishops  claim 
this  now  as  the  true  doctrine,  if  they  mean  to  be 
understood  as  having  the  power  of  imparting  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  miraculous  manner,  then,  and  not 
otherwise,  the  text  in  Heb.  vi.  2,  is  pertinent  proof. 
But  when  they  advance  this  claim,  it  will  be  easy 
to  test  its  validity. 

These  are  all  the  texts  of  Scripture  which  are  relied 
on  to  demonstrate  the  scriptural  authority  of  the  rite 
of  "  confirmation."  Whether  they  demonstrate  this, 
may  be  left  to  the  conclusion  of  any  candid  mind. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Saviour  appointed  no 
such  rite  to  be  of  perpetual  observance  in  the  church; 
that  though  he  instructed  his  apostles  to  "lay  hands 
on  the  sick,"  assuring  them  that  they  should  "re- 
cover," (Mark  xvi.  18,)  he  gave  no  instructions  to 
them  to  "lay  hands"  on  the  newly-baptized  to  "con- 
firm" them;  and  that  in  the  only  instances  where 
the  subject  is  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
is  with  exclusive  reference  to  the  conferring  of 
miraculous  gifts,  and  it  will  be  easily  seen  with 
what  propriety  the  appeal  is  made  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament, to  show  that  to  the  "bishop"  appertains 
the  authority  to  administer  the  rite  of  "confirma- 
tion." 

(3.)  If  the  above  be  a  fair  interpretation  of  the 
only  texts  in  the  Scriptures  which  are  relied  on  in 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  157 

support  of  the  rite  of  "confirmation,"  then  it  is  ob- 
vious that  there  is  great  impropriety  in  appealing  to 
them  with  a  view  to  giving  a  scriptural  sanction 
to  this  ceremony.  It  is  among  the  means  of  giving 
a  wholly  unscriptural  prominency  and  importance 
to  the  office  of  a  "prelate,"  and  of  preserving  the 
opinion  that  he  is  of  a  rank  elevated  above  the  infe- 
rior clergy.  The  use  of  those  texts,  and  the  habit 
of  appealing  to  them  as  authority,  has  the  tendency, 
if  it  is  not  designed  to  do  it,  to  leave  the  impression, 
that  the  "bishop"  has  the  power,  in  some  mysterious 
way,  and  in  a  manner  which  no  one  of  the  "inferior 
clergy"  has,  and  which  the  ministers  of  no  other 
denomination  are  invested  with,  of  imparting  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  is  true,  we  may  be  told,  that  there 
is  no  such  claim  as  that  the  miraculous  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  imparted;  or  that  the  only 
meaning  is,  that  this  is  a  method  by  which  the 
"ordinary  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  adapted  to 
enlighten  and  edify  Christians  are  conferred;"  or 
that  it  is  a  mere  ceremony  or  mode  by  which  the 
candidate  himself  "confirms"  his  purpose  to  be  the 
Lord's;  but  there  will  be  at  the  same  time  an  ap- 
peal to  Scripture  in  support  of  it,  and  only  to  texts 
which  speak  of  the  conferring  of  extraordinary  en- 
dowments. If  these  texts  relate  to  the  matter,  and 
are,  as  they  are  adduced  to  be,  proof-texts  in  sup- 
port of  the  rite,  then  they  carry  along  also  the  im- 
pression that  there  must  be  still  some  unusual  influ- 

14 


158  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

ences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  conveyed  through  the  hands 
of  the  bishop.  Such  an  effect  is  unavoidable  on  the 
mass  of  minds;  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
prelate  himself  would  be  solicitous  to  avoid  it.  He 
will  be  regarded  as  a  man  invested  with  functions 
which  appertain  to  no  other  man.  He  has  a  power 
of  conferring  that  which  no  other  man  can  confer. 
He  stands  between  God  and  man,  to  be  the  medium 
of  conveying  important  influences  which  are  in- 
trusted to  no  other  mortal.  There  will  be  supposed 
to  be  influences  of  a  valuable  kind  to  be  obtained 
only  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  and  to  attempt 
to  impart  which  would  be  an  act  of  the  highest 
presumption  in  any  one  of  the  inferior  clergy. 

It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  the  right  of 
confirmation  is  one  of  the  arrangements  adapted  to 
give  an  unscriptural  pre-eminence  to  the  office  of 
the  Episcopal  bishop.  It  is  fitted  to  keep  up  the 
impression  of  a  superior  sanctity  in  the  man  who 
holds  this  office,  and  to  exalt  the  episcopate  over  the 
body  of  the  inferior  clergy.  Associate  with  an  office 
the  idea  that  there  are  peculiar  endowments  to  be 
obtained  only  through  that,  and  especially  the  idea 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  in  "the  ordinary  influ- 
ences necessary  to  enlighten  and  aid  Christians  in 
the  spiritual  life,"  is  conveyed  in  this  way,  and 
there  is  a  degree  of  sanctity  attached  to  the  office  in 
the  public  estimation  which  can  be  secured  by  the 
possession  of  no  personal  moral  worth,  and  which 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  159 

will  soon  be  felt  to  be  an  equivalent  for  the  want  of 
moral  worth.  The  office  becomes  sacred,  no  matter 
what  the  man  is;  the  ministrations  of  that  office 
convey  rich  blessings  to  the  soul,  though  the  in- 
cumbent may  himself  be  wholly  destitute  of  the 
graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  tendency  of  the 
doctrine,  therefore,  is  to  give  a  pre-eminence  to  the 
office  of  the  prelate;  to  sustain  him  in  a  usurpation 
over  the  "inferior  clergy;"  to  keep  up  the  idea  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  conveyed  to  the  soul  by  some  ac- 
tion of  the  diocesan,  and  independently  of  any  piety 
in  him,  or  any  personal  religion  on  the  part  of  the 
recipient;  and,  therefo re,  that  they  who  are  "con- 
firmed" in  this  manner,  and  on  whom  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  thus  been  conferred,  can  be  in  no  danger 
in  regard  to  their  eternal  salvation.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  system  of  the  Papacy,  and  is  essentially  papal 
in  its  nature,  and  in  ite  whole  tendency  on  the  in- 
dividual and  on  the  church  of  Christ. 

Apart  from  the  entire  want  of  all  scriptural  au- 
thority in  favour  of  the  rite  of  "confirmation,"  there 
are  other  considerations  which  go  to  demonstrate 
that,  as  one  of  the  methods  of  exalting  the  "bishop" 
and  of  supporting  prelacy,  it  is  wholly  a  device  of 
human  origin.  It  is  an  institution  adapted,  and 
probably  originally  intended  in  the  progress  of  cor- 
ruption in  the  church,  to  humble  the  pastor  and  ex- 
alt the  prelate.  It  is  a  perpetual  aggression  on  the 
respect  which  is  due  to  the  pastor  of  a  church,  the 


160  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

man  who,  under  God,  is  instrumental  in  the  conver- 
sion of  those  who  are  to  be  "confirmed."  If  the 
"rite"  is  to  be  administered  at  all,  ejery  considera- 
tion of  propriety  and  of  justice  demands  that  it 
should  be  done  by  the  pastor  himself.  Those  who 
are  candidates  for  "confirmation"  he  has  trained  up 
under  his  care.  He  has  instructed  and  guided  them 
from  childhood.  If  they  are  converted,  he  has  been 
the  means  of  their  conversion.  He  has  imparted 
to  them  the  knowledge  of  salvation,  and  has  been 
the  instrument  in  qualifying  them  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  church  of  Christ.  In  all  this,  there  has 
been  no  supposition  of  his  incompetency  to  do  all, 
by  the  divine  blessing,  which  was  required  to  fit  them 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  now  a  time  ap- 
proaches in  which  he  is  to  be  superseded.  He  is  to 
be  set  aside  as  disqualified  for  performing  the  duty 
of  admitting  them  to  the  church,  and  the  work  is 
committed  to  the  hands  of  a  stranger — a  prelatical 
bishop.  The  man  who  was  deemed  qualified  to 
teach  them  from  childhood,  and  to  guide  them,  un- 
der the  Great  Shepherd,  beside  the  living  waters  of 
salvation,  and  who  is  not  disqualified  to  break  unto 
them  the  bread  of  life — the  man  bound  to  them  by 
the  tender  ties  of  the  pastoral  relation,  and  by  all 
the  associations  and  intimacies  resulting  from  such 
a  charge,  is  to  be  set  aside,  and  is  to  give  place — to 
whom?  To  a  man  in  relation  to  whom  none  of 
these  associations   exist;    a  man  whom  they  may 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  161 

never  have  seen  before,  and  whom  they  may  never 
see  again;  a  man  with  no  possible  claim  to  take  any 
supervision  over  them,  except  the  abstract  claim  of 
office;  and  a  man  who,  when  the  rite  is  performed, 
is  never  to  perform  toward  them  any  pastoral  super- 
vision whatever.  Possibly,  too — for  such  cases  are 
not  uncommon — he  may  be  a  man  far  inferior  in 
moral  worth,  in  spirituality  of  mind,  in  talent,  age 
eloquence,  and  learning,  to  the  pastor  himself;  a 
man  of  vitally  different  views  on  the  subject  of 
spiritual  Christianity  from  him  •  a  man  whose  coming 
is  barely  tolerated  by  the  pastor,  and  that  only  in 
virtue  of  his  office. 

But  admitting  that  he  has  in  all  cases  the  highest 
degree  of  personal  respectability;  that  there  centres 
in  him  always  all  the  excellencies  which  may  endear 
the  most  venerable  bishop  to  the  religious  commu- 
nity,— still  it  may  be  asked,  what  there  is  in  the 
character  and  teaching  and  lives  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  Episcopal  clergy  and  of  other  pastors  which 
renders  them  incapacitated  for  so  simple  an  office  as 
that  of  invoking  the  blessing  of  G-od  on  those  whom 
they  have  been  instrumental  in  converting?  Why 
should  such  men  be  held  up  to  the  community  as 
disqualified  to  perform  a  function  which,  if  appro- 
priate at  all,  properly  belongs  to  them?  Why 
should  it  be  announced  that  they  are  not  qualified 
to  admit  their  own  members  to  their  own  churches 
in  their  own  way?     Why  shall  this  work   be  re- 

14* 


162  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

served  to  be  performed  by  a  stranger?  Why  shall 
the  whole  community  be  told  periodically,  that  the 
regular  pastor  of  a  people  is  disqualified  for  laying 
his  own  hands  on  the  youthful  members  of  his 
charge,  and  imploring  for  them  the  divine  blessing? 
Is  this  in  accordance  with  the  obvious  spirit  of  the 
New  Testament  ?  And  is  it  improper  to  ask  here — 
would  it  be  uncourteous  to  put  it  to  the  conscience 
and  heart  of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  in  the 
Episcopal  Church — how  they  can  bear  to  be  periodi- 
cally displaced  from  their  station  over  their  flocks, 
and  be  required  to  yield  to  another  the  performance 
of  a  duty — if  it  be  a  duty — which  properly  belongs 
to  them  ?  If  there  be  an  advantage  in  this  arrange- 
ment to  them,  it  must  consist  in  its  tendency  to 
produce  great  humiliation  of  mind,  and  in  keeping 
before  their  eyes,  and  the  eyes  of  their  people,  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  the  growth  of  spiritual 
pride,  the  idea  that  they  are  only  of  "the  second  or 
inferior  order"  even  in  their  own  churches. 

To  the  rite  of  "confirmation"  as  a  mere  mode  of 
admission  to  a  church,  or  as  a  method  of  making  a 
profession  of  religion,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
objections.  Every  denomination  has  a  right  to 
adopt  such  methods  of  signifying  a  purpose  to  make 
a  profession  of  religion,  not  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  the  Bible,  as  shall  be  deemed  best 
adapted  to  edification.  The  method  adopted  in 
"confirmation"  might  be  used  by  a  Presbyterian,  or 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  163 

a  Methodist,  or  a  Baptist,  without  violating  any  of 
the  principles  which  they  entertain  about  the  proper 
methods  of  admission  to  the  church  of  Christ.  With 
such  a  view,  it  may  be  left  to  be  adopted  or  not,  as 
a  sense  of  propriety  may  lead  them  to  determine. 
But  when  it  is  urged  as  a  matter  of  scriptural  au- 
thority; when  it  is  claimed  that  it  should  be  confined 
to  a  prelatical  bishop;  when  texts  are  referred  to 
which  can  have  no  reference  to  any  thing  like 
"confirmation"  as  now  understood;  when  the  effect 
of  appealing  to  such  texts  is  to  keep  up  the  idea  of 
some  superior  sanctity  in  the  "bishop,"  and  of  some 
mysterious  power  of  imparting  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
when  the  whole  tendency  is  to  debase  and  degrade 
the  pastoral  office — to  displace  the  pastor  and  repre- 
sent him  as  disqualified  from  performing  a  simple 
rite  in  relation  to  his  own  flock — to  remove  him  to 
make  way  for  a  stranger, — then  the  whole  subject 
assumes  a  different  aspect.  It  makes  an  invasion  on 
the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church,  and  be- 
comes a  part  of  that  great  usurpation  which,  under 
the  Roman  hierarchy,  asserted  a  domination  of  the 
prelate  over  the  whole  "inferior  clergy,"  and  of  the 
priesthood  over  the  whole  world.  Nothing  can  be 
more  flimsy  and  futile  than  an  attempt  to  show,  from 
the  New  Testament,  that  a  "bishop"  has  the  exclu- 
sive authority  for  administering  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion; and  perhaps  there  is  no  device  in  the  hier- 
archy better  fitted  to  foster  a  sense  of  superiority  in 


164  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

"  ministerial  rank  and  dignity,"  and  to  nourish  the 
worst  feelings  of  ambition  in  the  human  heart,  than 
the  consciousness  of  possessing  this  power  to  dis- 
place the  pastors  from  their  office  periodically  from 
an  extended  circle  of  churches,  and  to  make  an  an- 
nual journey  where  every  step  is  a  practical  procla- 
mation of  their  superior  "rank,"  and  where  every 
church  becomes  a  memento  of  this  domination. 

Sect.  3. —  The  Claims  of  the  Bishop  to  the  Right  of 
Supervision  and  Discipline. 

These  points  might  be  examined  separately,  but 
as  the  same  principle  applies  to  both,  it  will  be 
more  convenient  to  consider  them  in  connection. 
The  claim  that  the  bishop  has  the  right  of  super- 
vision, and  of  administering  discipline  over  the 
churches  of  a  diocese,  is  one  that 'is  essential  to 
Episcopacy.  It  is  a  claim  which  asserts  not  only 
that  the  general  care  of  the  churches  within  a  given 
district  devolves  on  the  "bishop,"  but  that  neither 
the  individual  church  nor  the  pastor  of  the  church 
has  the  right  to  administer  discipline  on  the  mem- 
bers. It  asserts  that  this  power  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  one  man,  who  is  comparatively  a  stranger, 
and  who  alone  has  the  right  of  determining  the 
amount  of  punishment  that  is  to  be  inflicted  on  the 
offending  members  of  a  particular  church.  The 
authority  which  is  urged  for  this  mighty  power  is, 
that  the  apostles,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  thus  in- 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  165 

fiicted  discipline;  and  that  to  the  prelate,  as  being 
a  "successor"  of  the  apostles,  this  power  belongs, 
therefore,  as  a  matter  of  course.  I  have  examined 
the  claim  of  the  prelate  to  be  regarded  as  the  "suc- 
cessor" of  the  apostles,  and  here  the  argument 
might  be  left;  for  if  prelates  are  in  no  proper  sense 
the  "successors"  of  the  apostles,  then  it  will  follow 
that  even  if  the  apostles  did  exercise  discipline,  the 
bishops  have  no  claim  to  the  prerogatives  of  disci- 
pline in  the  churches.  But,  in  order  wholly  to  dis- 
prove this  asserted  right,  I  shall  proceed  to  con- 
sider the  question,  whether  the  apostles  themselves 
claimed  the  power  of  administering  discipline,  and 
were,*  therefore,  superior  to  the  presbyters.  The 
inquiry  will  be  pursued  with  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  they  administered  discipline  in  virtue 
of  their  office,  and  if  they  did,  whether  the  adminis- 
tration of  discipline  was  confined  to  them.  If  it 
was  not,  but  was  exercised  either  by  the  presbyters 
or  the  churches,  then  the  claim  of  the  "bishop"  is 
invalid. 

The  argument,  that  the  apostles  inflicted  discipline 
on  the  churches,  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Onderdonk, 
Tract,  p.  12  :  "In  1  Cor.  iv.  19-21;  v.  3-5;  2  Cor. 
ii.  6;  vii.  12;  x.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and  1  Tim.  i.  20, 
are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  of  discipline 
performed  by  an  apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part, 
although  there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth, 
and  certainly  were  in  Ephesus." 


166  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

The  two  cases  referred  to  are  those  of  Corinth 
and  of  Ephesus.  They  will  be  examined  separately, 
as  they  are  the  only  cases  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  purpose  for  which  these  cases  are 
adduced  by  Episcopalians  is,  to  show  that  the  apos- 
tles were  superior  to  presbyters  in  power  and  rights, 
and  the  alleged  proof  is,  that  they  administered  dis- 
cipline. To  bear  on  the  case,  therefore,  the  pas- 
sages must  prove  not  only  that  they  exercised 
discipline,  but  (1)  that  they  did  it  as  apostles,  or 
in  virtue  of  their  apostolic  office;  (2)  that  they  did 
it  in  churches  where  there  were  presbyters;  and 
(3)  that  neither  the  churches  nor  presbyters  ever 
administered  discipline  themselves.  Now  in  regard 
to  these  passages  referred  to  for  proof,  the  following 
general  remarks  may  be  made:  (1.)  There  were 
certainly,  in  all,  fourteen  apostles;  and  if  we  may 
credit  Episcopalians,  and  reckon  Timothy,  and  Bar- 
nabas, and  Silvanus,  and  Apollos,  aud  Andronicus, 
and  Junia,  and  Titus,  and  perhaps  half  a  dozen 
others,  there  were  somewhat  more  than  a  score  in- 
vested with  this  office;  yet  it  is  remarkable  that 
the  only  cases  of  discipline  referred  to,  as  going  to 
prove  the  superiority  of  the  whole  college  of  apostles, 
are  those  in  which  the  apostle  Paul  only  was  con- 
cerned. (2.)  There  are  accounts  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament of  perhaps  some  hundreds  of  churches ;  and 
yet,  we  meet  with  no  instance  of  the  kind  of  disci- 
pline relied  on,  except  in  the  single  churches  of 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  167 

Corinth  and  Ephesus.  It  is  incredible  that  there 
should  have  been  no  cases  of  discipline  except  in 
those  churches.  But  if  there  were,  the  presump- 
tion is,  that  they  were  settled  without  the  interven- 
tion of  an  apostle.  (3.)  These  very  cases,  as  will 
presently  be  shown,  occurred  in  churches  where 
Titus  and  Timothy  were  present, — both  regarded  by 
Episcopalians  as  "apostles"  and  " bishops," — and 
thus  were  acts  of  manifest  disrespect  for  the  author- 
ity of  those  prelates.  And  if  the  fact  that  the 
discipline  was  administered  where  there  were  pres- 
byters proves  that  the  apostle  Paul  was  superior  to 
them,  the  same  fact  proves  that  he  was  superior 
likewise  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  The  course  of  the 
argument,  then,  from  this  would  be,  that  Paul  was 
disposed  to  assume  the  whole  power  into  his  own 
hands,  and  to  set  aside  the  claims  alike  of  bishops 
and  presbyters. 

The  two  cases  alleged  as  proof  that  the  apostles 
only  had  the  power  of  administering  discipline  are 
those  at  Corinth  and  Ephesus.  Paul  wrote  fourteen 
epistles  to  eight  churches.  In  all  these  epistles, 
and  in  all  the  numerous  churches  of  which  he  had 
the  charge,  (2  Cor.  xi.  28,  "the  care  of  all  the 
churches,")  these  are  the  only  instances  in  which 
he  was  called,  so  far  as  appears,  to  exercise  disci- 
pline. We  now  inquire,  Whether  he  did  it  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  the  apostles  only  had  this 
power  ? 


168  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

The  first  case  alleged  is  that  at  Corinth.  The 
argument  in  regard  to  this  church  is  thus  stated  hy 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  his  "  Answer,"  pp.  103,  104  : 
"  There  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth  when  the 
epistles  "were  written  to  them.  We  prove  this  by 
the  language  of  Paul :  'As  a  wise  master-builder  I 
have  laid  the  foundation,  and  another  buildeth 
thereon/  We  prove  it  by  the  language,  hyper- 
bolical, indeed,  in  the  number,  but  decisive  o£  the 
fact :  '  Though  ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in 
Christ.'  We  prove  it  by  the  language  in  reference 
to  the  right  of  the  clergy  to  be  maintained  by  theii 
flocks  :  '  If  others  be  partakers  of  this  power  over 
you,  are  not  we  rather  V  We  prove  it  by  the  fact 
that  the  '  Lord's  supper'  was  celebrated  in  that 
church,  which  required  an  elder  at  least.  We 
prove  it  by  the  language  resj>ecting  some  of  the 
Corinthian  teachers :  '  Are  they  mi7iisters  of 
Christ  ....  I  am  more/ 

"Yet  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter, 
so  far  as  the  epistles  show,  though  they  doubtless 
were  noticed  and  consulted  as  much  as  courtesy 
and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — without 
putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing 
it  through  their  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and 
remits  discipline  among  the  people  of  their  charge. 
This  is  a  '  ministerial'  act ;  and  Paul's  doing  it 
himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to  the  elders, 
shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  superior  to  them  in 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUECH.  169 

ministerial  powers  and  rights.  The  conclusion  is 
unavoidable  if  the  fact  be  sustained.  Let  us,  then, 
look  to  the  fact — our  readers,  we  trust,  will  accom- 
pany us  patiently. 

" '  But  /  will  come  to  you  shortly,  if  the  Lord 
will,  and  will  know  not  the  speech  of  them  that  are 
puffed  up,  but  the  power.  For  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  not  in  word,  but  in  power.  What  will  ye  ?  Shall 
/  come  to  you  with  a  rod,  or  in  love,  and  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness  V   1  Cor.  iv.  19-21. 

"  Here  is  '  power'  and  a  '  rod'  to  be  exercised 
under  Good's  '  kingdom'  or  sovereignty,  and  by  one 
man,  an  apostle,  if  those  who  were  '  puffed  up'  did 
not  humble  themselves.  Here  is  church  discipline 
threatened,  not  by  or  through  the  elders,  but  by 
an  apostle  individually,  and  with  the  rod  in  his 
hands. 

"  i  For  /verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in 
spirit,  have  judged  (in  the  margin  determined} 
already,  as  though  I  were  present,  concerning  him 
that  hath  so  done  this  deed.  In  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered  together, 
and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved 
in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'   1  Cor.  v.  3-5. 

"  Here  is  an  act  of  church  discipline  nothing  less 
than  excommunication  ;  and  who  inflicts  it  ?  The 
elders  at  Corinth?     By  no  means.     Paul  does  it. 

15 


170  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

The  apostle  '  judges'  and  determines  to  '  deliver  to 
Satan'  the  unworthy  Christian — and  to  do  it  when 
that  church  and  '  his  spirit'  were  assembled  to- 
gether, himself  being  in  that  sense  present  when 
his  sentence  was  executed.  Who  read  his  sentence 
in  the  assembly  we  are  not  informed ;  probably  one 
of  the  elders.  Who  ejected  the  man  personally,  if 
that  mode  of  executing  the  sentence  was  added  to 
the  reading  of  it,  we  are  not  told.  It  is  enough 
that  the  'judgment,'  the  decision,  the  authority  for 
the  discipline,  was  that  of  an  apostle  alone,  and 
evinced  his  superiority,  in  ministerial  functions,  to 
the  elders  of  that  church.  The  excommunication 
led,  of  course,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  man  from  the 
friendship  and  kind  offices  of  the  brethren ;  and 
this  is  called  his  '  punishment  inflicted  of  many/  in 
the  passage  we  are  next  to  quote. 

,  " '  Sufficient  to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment, 
which  was  inflicted  of  many.  To  whom  ye  forgive 
any  thing,  /forgive  also;  for  if  /forgave  any  thing, 
to  whom  /  forgave  it,  for  your  sakes  forgave  I  it  in 
the  person  0/ Christ.'   2  Cor.  ii.  6,  10. 

"  Here  is  a  remission  of  discipline,  not  by  the 
elders,  but  by  an  apostle;  he  pronounces  the  punish- 
ment to  be  '  sufficient.'  The  brethren  forgive  the 
scandal  of  the  man's  conduct,  he  having  become 
penitent ;  and  Paul  forgives  him,  by  removing  the 
sentence.  They  forgave  as  men  and  fellow-Chris- 
tians— he  forgave  '  in  the  person  of  Christ.' 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  171 

"  With  such  illustrations  of  an  apostle's  power  to 
threaten  discipline,  to  inflict  discipline,  and  to  remit 
discipline,  we  shall  understand  the  force  of  the  other 
passages  in  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 

"  '  Wherefore,  though  I  wrote  unto  you,  I  did  it 
not  for  his  cause  that  had  done  the  wrong,  nor  for 
his  cause  that  suffered  wrong,  but  that  our  core  for 
you  in  the  sight  of  God  might  appear  unto  you.' 
2  Gor.  vii.  12.  '  But  though  I  should  boast  some- 
what  more  of  our  authority,  (which  the  Lord  hath 
given  us  for  edification,  and  not  for  your  destruc- 
tion,) I  should  not  be  ashamed.'  2  Cor.  x.  8.  'I 
told  you  before,  and  foretell  you,  as  if  I  were  pre- 
sent the  second  time ;  and  being  absent,  now  I 
write  to  them  which  heretofore  have  sinned,  and  to 
all  other,  that  if  I  come  again  /  will  not  spare. 
Therefore  I  write  these  things  being  absent,  lest 
being  present  /should  use  sharpness,  according  to 
the  power  which  the  Lord  hath  given  me  to  edifica- 
tion, and  not  to  destruction.'   2  Cor.  xiii.  2,  10." 

This  is  the  ichole  of  the  argument  from  the  care 
in  the  church  at  Corinth.  This  argument  I  pro- 
ceed now  to  examine,  and  in  reply  would  observe  : 
That  there  were  elders,  teachers,  ministers,  instruc- 
tors in  Corinth,  is  placed  beyond  a  question  by  the 
nature  of  the  case.  This  fact  I  do  not  intend  to 
call  in  question. 

Further,  if  there  were  elders  there,  there  wi:s 
also,   according  to  Episcopalians,  an   "  apostle,"   a 


172  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

prelatical  bishop,  there — to  wit,  Timothy.  That 
Timothy  was  there  at  the  time  referred  to,  is  shown 
by  a  quotation  from  the  epistle  itself,  relating  to 
this  very  time,  and  in  immediate  connection  with 
the  case  of  discipline.  1  Cor.  iv.  17  :  "  For  this 
cause  [that  is,  on  account  of  your  divided  and  con- 
tending state]  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timotheus, 
who  is  my  beloved  son  and  faithful  in  the  Lord, 
who  shall  bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways 
which  be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach  everywhere  in  every 
church."  Now,  as  it  will  not  be  pretended  by 
Episcopalians  that  Timothy  was  not  an  "  apostle" 
and  a  prelate,  and  as  it  is  undeniable  that  he  was 
at  that  time  at  Corinth,  the  argument  will  as  well 
apply  to  set  aside  his  right  to  administer  discipline 
in  the  case,  as  that  of  the  elders.  Borrowing,  then, 
the  words  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  I  would  say :  "  Yet 
without  noticing"  this  apostle  "  in  the  matter,  so 
far  as  the  epistles  show — though"  he  was  "  doubt- 
less noticed  and  consulted,  as  much  as  courtesy  and" 
his  apostolical  "  standing  made  proper — without 
putting  the  matter  into"  his  "hands,  or  even  pass- 
ing it  through"  his  "  hands — Paul  threatens,  in- 
flicts, and  remits  discipline.  This  is  a  ministerial 
act.  And  Paul's  doing  it  himself,  instead  of  com- 
mitting it  to"  Timothy,  "shows  that  he,  an  apos- 
tle, was  superior  to"  him  "  in  ministerial  power 
and  rights."  Now,  no  Episcopalian  will  fail  to  be 
at  once  deeply  impressed  with  the  fallacy  of  this 


OF    HIE    ATOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  173 

reasoning  in  regard  to  Timothy.  And  yet,  it  is 
manifestly  just  as  pertinent  and  forcible  in  his  case 
as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  elders  of  Corinth.  It  can- 
not be  pretended  that  a  difference  existed,  because 
the  "elders"  were  permanently  located  there,  and 
Timothy  not  :  for  the  argument  relied  on  is.  that 
the  apostles  were  superior  a*  apostles,  and  then 
it  made  no  difference  on  this  point  whether  they 
were  at  Corinth,  or  at  Crete,  or  at  Antioch ;  they 
were  invested  with  the  apostolic  office  everywhere. 
The  conclusion  which  I  derive  from  this  instance, 
and  from  the  fact  which  has  now  been  stated,  is, 
that  there  was  some  peculiarity  in  the  case  at 
rinth,  which  rendered  the  ordinary  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline by  presbyters  difficult ;  which  operated 
equally  against  any  interference  by  Timothy  ;  and 
which  called  particularly  for  the  interposition  of  the 
founder  of  the  church,  and  of  an  inspired  apostle — 
of  one  clothed  with  authority  to  inflict  a  heavy 
judgment,  here  denominated  'delivering  unto  Satan 
for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh."  |  1  Cor.  v.  5.) — a 
power  which  could  be  exercised  bv  none  then  in 
Corinth.  The  next  inquiry  is.  whether  there  are 
any  reasons  for  this  opinion '  The  following  appear 
to  be  entirely  satisfactory  : — 

(1.)  Paul  had  established  that  church.  'Acts  xviii. 
L— 11,)  and  his  interference  in  cases  of  discipline 
would  be  regarded  as  peculiarly  proper.  There 
would  be  a  natural  and  obvious  deference   to  the 

15* 


174  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

founder  of  the  church,  which  would  render  such  an 
interposition  in  the  highest  degree  appropriate. 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  he  puts  his 
authority  in  this  very  case  on  the  deference  which 
was  due  to  him  as  their  spiritual  father :  "  For 
though  ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ, 
yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers  ;  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  /  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel. " 
1  Cor.  iv.  15. 

(2.)  The  circumstances  of  the  church  at  Corinth 
were  such,  evidently,  as  to  render  the  ordinary 
exercise  of  discipline  by  their  own  elders,  without 
counsel  from  abroad  and  the  judgment  of  one  who 
would  be  respected,  impossible.  They  were  rent 
into  parties ;  were  engaged  in  violent  contention ; 
and  the  authority,  therefore,  of  one  portion  of  the 
"teachers"  and  "instructors"  would  be  disregarded 
by  the  other.  Thus,  no  harmonious  sentence  could 
be  agreed  upon,  and  no  judgment  of  a  party  could 
restore  peace.  An  attempt  to  exercise  discipline 
would  only  enkindle  party  animosity,  and  produce 
strife.  See  chap.  i.  11-17.  So  great,  evidently, 
was  the  contention,  and  so  hopeless  the  task  of 
allaying  it  by  any  ordinary  means,  that  even  Ti- 
mothy, whom  Paul  had  sent  for  the  express  purpose 
of  bringing  them  into  remembrance  of  his  ways, 
(1  Cor.  iv.  17,)  could  have  no  hope,  by  his  own  in- 
terference, of  allaying  it.  It  was  natural,  there- 
fore, that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  founder  of  the 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  175 

church,  and  to  one  who  had  the  power  of  punishing 
th>e  offender. 

(3.)  It  is  material  to  remark,  that  this  was  not  an 
ordinary  case  of  discipline.  It  was  one  which  re- 
quired the  severest  exercise  of  authority,  and  in  a 
form  which  was  lodged  only  with  those  intrusted 
with  the  power  of  inflicting  diseases,  or,  as  it  is 
termed,  "  of  delivering  to  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh/'  1  Cor.  v.  5.  Such  cases  would  inevi- 
tably devolve  upon  the  apostles,  as  clothed  with 
miraculous  power ;  and  such,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, was  this  instance.  It  therefore  proves  nothing 
about  the  ordinary  mode  of  administering  disci- 
pline. This  offence  had  reached  such  a  degree  of 
enormity — it  had  been  suffered  to  remain  so  long, 
and  had  become  so  aggravated — that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  interpose  in  this  awful  manner,  and  to  de- 
cide it.     Yet, 

(4.)  The  apostle  supposes  that  they  ought  to  have 
exercised  the  usual  discipline  themselves.  This  is 
evident  from  a  comparison  of  the  following  pas- 
sages :  1  Cor.  v.  9,  10,  11,  12,  with  v.  2.  In  these 
verses  it  is  supposed  that  they  did  themselves 
usually  exercise  discipline.  Paul  (ver.  9)  gave 
them  the  general  direction  not  to  keep  company 
with  fornicators;  that  is,  to  exercise  discipline  on 
those  who  did.  In  ver.  11,  he  asks  them — in  a 
manner  showing  that  the  affirmative  answer  to  the 
question  expressed   their  usual   practice — whether 


176  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

they  did  not  "judge  those  that  were  within  ?"  that  ' 
is,  whether  they  did  not  ordinarily  exercise  disci- 
pline in  the  church  ?  And  in  ver.  2,  he  supposes 
that  it  ought  to  have  been  done  in  this  very  case; 
and  as  it  had  not  been  done  by  them,  and  the  affair 
had  assumed  special  enormity,  he  exercised  the 
miraculous  power  intrusted  to  him,  by  inflicting  on 
the  offender  a  grievous  disease.  Ver.  4,  5;  comp. 
1  Cor.  xi.  30. 

(5.)  This  case  of  discipline  in  the  church  was, 
after  all,  in  fact,  administered  by  the  church  itself, 
and  not  by  the  apostle  Paul.  This  is  conclusive 
from  verses  3-5 :  "  For  I  verily,  as  absent  in  body, 
but  present  in  spirit,  have  judged  already,  as  though 
I  were  present,  concerning  him  that  hath  so  done 
this  deed;  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
when  ye  are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with 
the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such 
a  one  unto  Satan."  They  were  to  be  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  administering  discipline,  and  the 
act  was  in  reality  to  be  administered  by  the  church. 
The  apostle  did  not  assume  the  authority  to  do  it 
independently  of  the  church,  or  without  their  con- 
currence ;  and  though  the  offence  was  so  great  and 
glaring  that  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  propriety 
and  the  necessity  of  administering  the  discipline, 
yet  even  Paul  would  not  do  it,  though  in  a  church 
founded  by  himself,  in  a  way  which  ^ would  invade 
their  own  proper  prerogatives.     It  is  to  be  remem- 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  177 

bered,  too,  that  this  was  a  case  where  bodily  pains 
were  to  be  inflicted  by  miraculous  agency,  for  the 
offender  was  to  be  delivered  "  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh;"  and  that  even  in  this  case 
the  apostle  would  not  visit  a  member  of  the  church 
with  this  punishment  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  church  itself.  Even  Paul,  an  apostle,  and  the 
spiritual  father  of  the  church,  did  not  claim  the 
authority  to  remove  an  offender  except  through  their 
agency.  The  church  was  to  take  up  the  case,  to  act 
on  it,  to  pass  the  sentence,  to  excommunicate  the 
man.  And  again,  when  the  sentence  was  to  be  re- 
mitted, and  the  offender  was  to  be  restored,  it  was 
to  be  by  the  church  itself.  Even  an  apostle  did 
not  assume  the  prerogative  of  saying  that  the 
offender  should -he  reinstated  in  the  church;  he  did 
not  by  his  own  authority  restore  him  to  his  former 
good  standing  :  he  placed  himself  before  the  church 
as  a  pleader,  and  asked  them  to  do  it :  "  Sufficient 
to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment,  which  was  in- 
flicted of  many,  [not  of  one,  as  the  apostle,  but  by 
the  collective  church.]  So  that  contrariwise  ye 
OUGHT  rather  to  forgive  him,  and  comfort  him,  lest 
perhaps  such  a  one  should  be  swallowed  up  with 
overmuch  sorrow.  Wherefore  I  beseech  you  that 
ye  would  confirm  your  love  toward  him.  For  to 
this  end  also  did  I  write,  that  I  might  know  the 
proof  of  you,  whether  ye  be  obedient  in  all  things." 
2  Cor.  iii.  6-9.     Here  the   church  is  consulted  at 


178  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

every  step,  and  without  its  action  nothing  is  done. 
In  judging  in  the  case,  in  excluding  the  member, 
and  again  in  admitting  him  to  the  communion,  the 
church  acts  throughout.  The  apostle  does  nothing 
himself.  I  would  respectfully  ask  whether  this  is 
the  method  of  administering  discipline  by  those 
who  claim  to  be  the  "  successors"  of  the  apostles  in 
the  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church"  ?  When  disci- 
pline is  to  be  administered,  is  it  the  practice  for  the 
"  bishop"  to  make  a  representation  of  it  to  the 
"  church"  in  which  the  offence  was  committed,  and 
to  ask,  or  even  to  enjoin,  the  church  to  "gather  to- 
gether with  his  spirit,"  and  to  deliver  the  offender 
to  the  just  measure  of  punishment?  And  again, 
when  he  judges  that  the  "punishment  inflicted  of 
many"  is  "  sufficient,"  does  he  present  himself  at 
the  door  of  the  assembled  church,  and  "beseech" 
them  to  receive  the  offending  member  again  ?  I 
apprehend  that  in  this  respect  there  has  been  an 
entire  departure  from  the  "apostolic"  rule  and 
example.  The  matter  of  fact  is,  that  in  all  in- 
stances of  discipline  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  the 
bishop  is  the  ultimate  arbiter,  and  if  a  case  is 
brought  before  him,  he  has  the  sole  right  of  de- 
cision, and  neither  church  nor  pastor,  nor  both, 
can  set  his  verdict  aside. 

(6.)  It  is  evident  that  other  churches  did,  in 
ordinary  cases,  exercise  discipline  without  the  in- 
tervention  of   an   apostle.      Thus;  the  church  in 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  179 

Thessalonica — where  Episcopacy,  with  all  its  zeal, 
has  never  been  able  even  to  conjecture  that  there 
was  a  diocesan  bishop — was  directed  to  exercise 
discipline  in  any  instance  where  the  command  of 
the  inspired  apostle  was  not  obeyed  :  "  And  if  any 
man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that 
man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may 
be  ashamed."  2  Thess.  iii.  14. 

(7.)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  churches 
were  such  as  to  make  the  apostolic  intervention 
proper,  and  even  indispensable,  without  supposing 
that  it  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement.  These 
churches  were  ignorant  and  feeble.  They  had  had 
little  opportunity  of  learning  the  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity. In  most  cases,  their  founders  were  with 
them  but  a  few  weeks,  and  then  left  them  under 
the  care  of  elders  ordained  from  among  themselves. 
(Comp.  Acts  xiii.  xiv.,  et  passim.)  Those  elders 
would  be  poorly  qualified  to  discharge  the  functions 
of  their  office,  for  they  would  be  but  little  elevated, 
in  character  and  learning,  above  the  mass  of  the 
people.  The  churches  must  have  been  imperfectly 
organized,  unaccustomed  to  rigid  discipline,  ex- 
posed to  many  temptations,  easily  drawn  into  sin, 
and  subject  to  great  agitation  and  excitement. 
Even  many  subjects  in  morals  and  religion,  which 
may  now  be  considered  as  settled,  would  appear  to 
them  open  for  debate,  and  parties,  as  at  Corinth, 
would   easily  be   formed.      Comp.  Acts  xiv.  xv. ) 


180  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

Rom.  xiv. ;  1  Cor.  viii.  In  these  circumstances, 
how  natural  was  it  for  these  churches  to  loo*k  for 
direction  to  the  inspired  men  who  had  founded 
them ;  and  how  natural  that  such  persons  should 
interpose  and  settle  important  and  difficult  cases  of 
discipline.  In  view  of  these  obvious  considerations, 
are  we  to  suppose  that  the  fact  that  the  apostle  Paul 
in  two  cases — and  two  such  cases  only  are  recorded — 
directed  an  extraordinary  act  of  discipline,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  proof  that  this  power  appertained  only 
to  the  apostolic  office,  and  was  to  be  a  permanent 
arrangement  in  the  church  ?  It  is  rather  a  matter 
of  wonder  that  but  two  cases  of  apostolic  inter- 
ference are  mentioned  during  the  long  and  active 
life  of  Paul )  and  this  is  evidence  of  great  weight 
that  the  churches  were  expected  to  exercise  disci- 
pline, and  actually  did  so,  on  their  own  members. 

These  views  are  confirmed  by  what  is  known  to 
take  place  in  organizing  churches  in  heathen  coun- 
tries at  the  present  day.  In  a  conversation  with 
me,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Winslow,  one  of  the  American 
missionaries  then  stationed  at  Ceylon,  incidentally 
remarked  that  the  missionaries  were  obliged  to  re- 
tain the  exercise  of  discipline  in  their  own  hands ; 
and  that,  although  the  mission  had  been  established 
more  than  fifteen  years,  yet  it  had  never  been  in- 
trusted to  the  native  converts.  He  further  observed 
that  the  missionaries  had  been  endeavouring  to  find 
persons   to  whom  they  could  intrust  the  discipline 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  181 

of  the  church,  as  elders,  but  that  as  yet  they  had 
not  found  one.  The  native  converts  were  still  so 
ignorant  of  the  laws  of  Christianity,  they  had  so 
little  influence  in  the  church,  they  were  so  partial 
to  each  other,  even  when  in  fault,  that  thus  far  dis- 
cipline— though  somewhat  frequent  acts  were  neces- 
sary— was  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  missionaries. 
Substantially  the  same  thing  must  have  occurred  in 
the  early  churches  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Syria,  and 
Greece.  Will  Episcopalians  infer  that,  because 
modern  missionaries  have  found  it  necessary  to  re- 
tain the  power  of  administering  discipline  in  their 
own  hands,  therefore  they  are  diocesan  bishops, 
and  that  they  do  not  contemplate  that  the  churches 
under  their  care  shall  be  other  than  prelatical  ?  If 
not,  the  argument  in  the  case  of  the  church  in 
Corinth  should  be  allowed  to  have  no  weight. 

I  have  now  done  with  this  instance  of  discipline. 
I  have  shown  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
can  be  accounted  for  without  any  such  conclusion 
as  that  to  which  Episcopalians  are  desirous  of  con- 
ducting it.  I  turn,  therefore,  to  the  other  case  of 
discipline  referred  to — that  in  the  church  at  Ephesus. 

The  case  is  thus  stated  in  1  Tim.  i.  20 :  "  Of 
whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander ;  whom  I  have 
delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to 
blaspheme."  The  argument  of  Episcopalians  is 
stated  by  Dr.  Onderdonk  in  the  following  words  : — 

"  There  i  certainly  were'  elders  in  Ephesus  when 
16 


182  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy.  We  prove 
this  fact  from  the  language  :  '  That  thou  mightest 
charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine.' 
Teachers,  then,  there  were  in  that  church,  public 
teachers,  authorized  teachers,  and  such  are  not  the 
ruling  elders  or  deacons  of  parity,  nor  (except  under 
the  bishop's  license)  the  deacons  of  Episcopacy; 
therefore  both  these  parties,  the  only  ones  con- 
cerned with  the  Tract,  must  agree  that  they  '  cer- 
tainly' were  elders  or  presbyters.  We  prove  it  by 
the  apostle's  condemnation  of  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander, for  '  making  shipwreck  concerning  faith,' 
i.  e.  making  shipwreck  in  teaching  the  faith,  teach- 
ing it  publicly  and  with  authority;  and  these 
teachers  were  elders,  for  the  reasons  just  given. 
We  prove  it  also  from  the  fact  that  there  were 
elders  at  Ephesus  when  Paul  said  to  them,  in  Acts 
xx. :  '  Grievous  wolves  shall  enter  in  among  you, 
also  of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking 
perverse  things  ;'  Paul  thus  declaring  that  the  false 
teaching  at  Ephesus  would  be  by  elders,  and  would 
ocour  afterward,  it  not  having  occurred  as  yet.  That 
the  false  teaching  would  be  by  elders,  seems  de- 
cisive in  favour  of  the  assertion  that  the  false  teach- 
ing there  was  by  elders,  as  we  have  just  maintained; 
that  the  false  teaching  was  yet  to  occur,  when  there 
were  already  elders  in  Ephesus  addressed  by  Paul, 
in  Acts  xx.,  is  proof  that  that  church  had  its  elders 
when  this  evil  indoctrination  had  occurred,  which 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  183 

was  the  case  when  Paul  first  wrote  to  Timothy,  as 
our  extracts  from  that  epistle  show.  This  latter 
argument  we  consider  final :  the  epistle  enumerates, 
as  errors  then  existing  there,  '  fables,  endless  genea- 
logies, swerving  from  charity  and  faith  to  vain 
jangling,  questions  and  strifes  of  words,  perverse 
disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds  and  destitute 
of  the  truth,  profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  op- 
positions of  science  falsely  so  called ;'  pwff^w?,  per- 
haps gnosticism,  as  Hammond  argues.  This  was 
the  state  of  things  at  Ephesus  when  Paul  wrote  the 
epistle.  But  when  he  addressed  the  '  elders,'  in 
Acts  xx.,  he  spoke  of  nothing  of  the  sort  as  having 
existed,  or  as  existing  then,  but  only  as  to  exist  at 
a  future  time.  If,  then,  there  were  elders  there 
before  these  mischiefs  appeared,  there  '  certainly 
were*  when  they  were  afterward  developed — i.  e. 
when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy. 

"Well,  then,  is  the  discipline  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus  intrusted  to  these  elders  ?  Nothing  like  it. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Corinthians,  that  '  power  was 
given  by  the  Lord'  to  an  apostle,  and  only  an  apostle 
exercised  it.  It  is  the  apostle  who  inflicts  the  dis- 
cipline )  the  elders  do  not  appear  in  the  matter. 
And  discipline  is  a  ministerial  function,  and  excom- 
munication its  highest  exercise."  (Answer,  p.  13.) 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  make  the  following 
observations : — 

(1.)  It   occurs   in  a  charge  to  Timothy — that 


184  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

Timothy,  who,  on  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians, 
was  an  apostle  co-ordinate  with  Paul  himself;  Timo- 
thy, the  prelate  of  Ephesus.  If  Timothy  was  an 
apostle,  and  a  diocesan  bishop,  and  if  the  exercise 
of  discipline  pertained  to  an  apostle  and  bishop, 
why  did  Paul  take  the  matter  into  his  own  hands? 
Why  did  he  not  refer  it  to  Timothy,  and  repose 
sufficient  confidence  in  him  to  believe  that  he  was 
competent  to  fulfil  this  part  of  his  episcopal  office? 
Would  it  now  be  regarded  as  courteous  for  the 
"  bishop"  of  the  diocese  of  Ohio  to  interpose  and 
inflict  an  act  of  discipline  on  some  Hymeneus  or 
Alexander  of  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania?  And 
would  there  be  as  cordial  submission  of  the  bishop 
of  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania  as  there  was  of  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Ephesus?  If  Timothy 
was  at  Ephesus,  and  if  the  case  of  discipline  oc- 
curred at  the  time  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes, 
this  case  appears  very  much  as  if  Paul  regarded 
Timothy  as  neither  an  apostle  nor  a  prelate. 

(2.)  If  the  exercise  of  the  authority  in  this  case 
of  discipline  by  Paul  proves  that  the  presbyters  at 
Ephesus  had  no  right  to  administer  discipline,  for 
the  same  reason  it  proves  that  Timothy  had  not  that 
right.  By  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians,  Timo- 
thy was  there,  as  well  as  the  presbyters.  The  as- 
sumption of  the  authority  by  Paul  as  much  proves 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  Timothy  as  that  it  did  not 
belong  to  the  presbyters. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  185 

(3.)  This  was  a  case  similar  to  that  which  oc- 
curred at  Corinth.  It  was  an  act  of  discipline 
which  supposed  the  infliction  of  the  judgment  of 
God  by  a  miraculous  agency:  "Whom  I  have  de- 
livered unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blas- 
pheme." Compare  this  account  with  the  record  of 
the  case  in  Corinth,  (1  Cor.  v.  5,)  and  it  is  evident 
that  this  was  not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline, 
but  was  such  as  implied  the  direct  infliction  of 
punishment  by  the  Almighty.  That  such  inflic- 
tions were  intrusted  to  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  I 
admit;  and  that  Paul,  not  Timothy,  inflicted  this, 
proves  that  the  latter  was  neither  an  apostle  nor  a 
prelate. 

(4.)  It  is  supposed  by  Episcopalians  that  this 
occurred  at  Ephesus,  and  while  Timothy  was  there. 
But  what  evidence  is  there  of  this?  It  is  neither 
affirmed  that  the  transaction  was  at  Ephesus,  nor 
that  Timothy  was  present.  The  argument  of  Episco- 
palians proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  Timothy 
was  bishop  there  when  the  epistle  was  written,  and 
that  the  case  of  discipline  occurred  there.  The 
only  possible  pretence  of  proof  of  this  would  be  the 
subscription  at  the  end  of  the  second  epistle.  But 
that  subscription  has  no  authority  whatever;  and  it 
is  not  to  be  assumed,  but  proved,  that  Timothy  was 
there  in  the  capacity  of  a  prelate,  or  there  at  all, 
when  this  epistle  was  written  to  him.  The  demon- 
stration, that  a  bishop  only  exercised  discipline,  it 

16* 


186  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

must  be  admitted,  rests  on  slender  grounds,  if  this 
be  all. 

(5.)  But  if  this  case  did  occur  at  Ephesus,  what 
evidence  is  there  that  it  occurred  at  the  time  that 
Episcopalians  suppose  ?  The  account  in  the  Epistle 
to  Timothy  by  no  means  fixes  the  time  of  the  trans- 
action. "Whom  I  have  delivered  (napiSiDxa)  unto 
Satan."  It  was  already  done;  and  the  presumption 
is,  that  it  was  done  when  Paul  was  himself  present 
with  them.  It  is  morally  certain  that  it  was  not  an 
act  of  discipline  then  to  be  performed. 

My  readers  have  now  the  whole  case  before  them. 
Episcopacy  affirms  that  prelates  only  have  the  power 
of  administering  discipline.  It  affirms  that  the 
churches  are  prohibited  from  exercising  it  on  their 
own  members;  that  those  appointed  to  preach  the 
gospel,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  be  pas- 
tors of  the  flock, — and  who  may  therefore  be  sup- 
posed to  understand  the  cases  of  discipline  and  best 
qualified  to  administer  it, — have  no  right  to  exercise 
this  act  of  government  over  their  own  members,  but 
that  this  exclusive  prerogative  belongs  to  a  stranger, 
and  a  foreigner — a  prelatical  bishop — whom  the 
churches  seldom  see,  and  who  must  be,  in  a  great 
degree,  unacquainted  with  their  peculiar  wants  and 
character.  All  power  of  discipline  in  an  entire  dio- 
cese of  some  hundreds  of  churches  is  to  be  taken 
away  from  the  churches  themselves,  and  from  the 
pastors,  and  committed  to  a  solitary,  independent 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  187 

man,  who,  from  the  nature  of  the  circumstances, 
can  have  little  acquaintance  with  the  case,  and  pos- 
sess few  of  the  qualifications  requisite  for  the  intelli- 
gent performance  of  this  duty.  And  does  the 
reader  ask,  What  is  the  authority  for  this  assump- 
tion of  power?  Why  are  the  churches  and  their 
pastors  disrobed  of  this  office,  and  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  humble  dependants  at  the  feet  of  the 
prelate?  Let  him,  in  astonishment,  learn.  It  is 
not  because  there  is  any  command  to  this  effect  in 
the  New  Testament;  it  is  not  because  there  is  any 
declaration  implying  that  it  would  be  so;  it  is  not  by 
any  affirmation  that  it  ever  was  so.  This  is  the 
reason,  and  this  is  all : — The  apostle  Paul,  in  two 
cases,  and  in  both  instances  over  the  heads  of  pres- 
byters, (and  over  the  head  of  "  Bishop''  Timothy, 
too,)  delivered  men  "to  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,  that  they  might  learn  not  to  blas- 
pheme;" and  therefore,  Episcopal  bishops  only 
have  power  to  administer  discipline  in  the  Christian 
church;  and  therefore,  all  the  acts  of  discipline 
exercised  by  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists, 
and  Congregationalists  are  null  and  void.  The 
disposal  of  such  antecedents  and  consequents  may 
be  safely  left  to  all  who  hold  that  "  no  argument  is 
worth  taking  into  the  account  that  has  not  a  clear 
and  palpable  bearing  on  the  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy."     Tract,  p.  3. 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  subject.     I  shall 


188  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

yet  show,  (ch.  iv.  §  2,  2,)  not  only,  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  apostles  exclusively  exercised 
discipline,  but  that  there  is  positive  proof  that  all 
the  acts  of  discipline  were  in  fact  exercised  by  the 
presbyters  and  the  churches. 

I  have  now  examined  the  essential  point  in  Epis- 
copacy; for,  if  the  claims  which  are  arrogated  for 
prelatical  bishops  are  unfounded,  the  system,  as  a 
system,  is  destroyed.  I  have  examined  the  solitary 
passage  urged  directly  in  its  favour,  "the  apostles 
and  elders,"  "the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  bre- 
thren;" and  the  claims  set  up  in  favour  of  their 
exclusive  right  to  administer  discipline  and  to 
administer  the  rite  of  confirmation.  I  have  shown, 
if  I  mistake  not,  that  none  of  the  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  relied  on  furnish  support  for  the 
stupendous  claims  set  up  in  favour  of  the  prelate. 
If  they  do  not,  then,  by  the  uniform  admission  of 
Episcopalians,  and  by  the  special  concession  of  Dr. 
Onderdouk,  there  is  no  authority  for  Episcopacy  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  it  must  be  regarded  as  wholly 
an  arrangement  of  human  origin.  "If  we  cannot," 
says  Dr.  Onderdonk,  (Tract,  p.  11,)  "authenticate 
the  claims  of  the  episcopal  office,"  [the  office  of  the 
prelate,]  "we  will  surrender  those  of  our  deacons, 
and  let  all  power  he  confined  to  the  one  office  of  pres- 
byters." It  is  submitted  to  the  reader  whether  we 
are  not  now  prepared  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  con- 
cession, and  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  "  the  claims 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  189 

of  the  episcopal  office"  are  not  made  out,  and  that 
the  ministers  oi  the  gospel  should  be  regarded  as 
equal  in  grade  and  honour.  If  so,  the  controversy 
should  be  considered  as  at  an  end. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE     CONSTITUTION    OP    THE     CHURCH    AS    ESTAB- 
LISHED  BY  THE    SAVIOUR  AND   THE  APOSTLES. 

Having  thus  examined  all  the  scriptural  argu- 
ments which  are  adduced  by  Episcopalians  in  fa- 
vour of  the  peculiar  organization  of  their  church, 
the  argument  might  be  left  here,  for,  if  the  positions 
which  have  been  taken  are  correct,  the  principal  ob- 
ject contemplated  is  accomplished.  If  there  is  no 
scriptural  authority  for  prelacy;  none  for  an  apos- 
tolical succession;  none  for  confirmation;  none  for 
the  right  which  the  "  bishop"  claims  for  administer- 
ing discipline, — then  it  follows  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  system  which  makes  it  binding  on  the  churches 
of  the  Redeemer,  and  that  the  whole  arrangement 
of  the  Episcopacy  is  one  of  human  origin. 

But  it  is  often  objected  by  Episcopalians,  that  all 
the  efforts  of  those  who  doubt  the  claims  of  the 
"  Episcopate"  are  employed  to  demolish  that  system 
without  proposing  any  substitute  in  its  place;  and 
that,  while  so  much  zeal  is  evinced  to  prove  that 


190  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

their  claims  are  not  founded  on  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  nothing  is  done  to  show  what  was  the 
plan  on  which  the  church  in  the  New  Testament 
was  organized.  It  is  proposed,  therefore,  to  collect 
and  arrange  the  scattered  notices  on  this  point  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  inquire  whether  it  was 
the  design  of  the  Saviour  to  prescribe  any  form 
of  church  government  which  should  be  universally 
binding  on  his  church.  The  first  point  will  relate 
to  the  officers  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament; 
the  second,  to  the  actual  organization  and  govern- 
ment of  the  churches. 

Sect.  1. —  The  Officers  of  the  Church. 

The  officers  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  the  organization  of  the  church,  may  be  divided 
into  two  great  classes.  1.  Those  which  were  in- 
tended to  be  temporary;  and,  2.  Those  which  are  so 
mentioned  as  to  show  that  they  were  designed  to  be 
permanent. 

I.  Those  which  were  designed  to  be  temporary. 

Under  this  class  are  to  be  ranked, 

(1.)  The  apostles,  properly  so  called,  who  were 
appointed  by  the  Saviour  to  be  his  companions,  to 
be  witnesses  of  what  he  taught,  and  to  be  wit- 
nesses of  his  resurrection.  This  has  been  demon- 
strated in  ch.  ii.  This  office,  from  its  nature,  was 
temporary,  and  was  confined  to  those  who  had  been 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  191 

with  him  during  his  public  ministry,  and  whom  he 
had  specially  called  for  this  purpose,  with  Matthias, 
who  was  chosen  to  fill  the  vacated  place  of  Judas, 
(Acts  i.,)  and  Paul,  who  was  called  to  the  special 
work  of  the  apostleship  among  the  Gentiles,  and 
permitted  to  see  the  Saviour  in  a  miraculous  manner 
after  his  ascension,  in  order  that  he  might  have  the 
appropriate  qualification  of  an  apostle.  1  Cor.  ix. 
This  office  was  one  in  which,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  there  could  be  no  succession,  unless  the  "  suc- 
cession' '  was  kept  up  by  a  miraculous  manifestation 
of  the  Saviour  to  each  one  in  the  "succession,"  as 
in  the  case  of  the  apostle  Paul,  to  qualify  him  to  be 
a  "  witness"  that  the  Kedeemer  was  risen  from  the 
dead.  In  reference  to  this  point,  I  may  briefly  sum 
up  all  that  has  been  shown  to  be  contained  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  case  stands  thus:  (a.)  There 
is  no  command  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  apos- 
tles to  transmit  to  others  the  peculiarity  of  the  apos- 
tolic office.  If  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  was  to 
be  transmitted,  it  was  required  that  such  a  command 
should  be  given.  But  it  has  not  been  pretended 
that  any  such  command  has  been  discovered. 
(6.)  There  is  no  affirmation  that  it  would  be  thus 
transmitted.  No  one  has  been  able  to  find  an 
affirmative  on  that  point.  And  we  may  ask  here 
whether  it  is  credible  that  the  apostles  were  bish- 
ops of  a  superior  order,  and  that  it  was  designed 
that  all  the  church  should  be  subject  to  an  order  of 


192  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

men  "  superior  in  ministerial  rank  and  power,"  de- 
riving their  authority  from  the  apostles,  and  yet 
not  the  slightest  command  thus  to  transmit  it,  and 
not  the  slightest  hint  that  it  would  be  done  ?  (c)  It 
was  imjyossible  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office  should  be  transmitted.  I  have  shown,  not  by 
assumptions,  but  by  a  large  array  of  passages  of 
Scripture,  what  that  peculiarity  was  :  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  great  events  which  went  to  prove  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  rose  from  the 
dead.  The  peculiarity  of  that  office,  as  specified  by 
Jesus  Christ,  by  the  chosen  apostles,  by  Paul,  and 
by  the  whole  college,  could  not  be  transmitted ; 
for  no  prelate  is,  or  can  be,  a  witness,  in  the  sense 
and  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  originally 
designated,  unless  he  can  make  the  affirmation  which 
Paul  did  in  proof  that  he  was  an  apostle  :  "  Am  I  not 
an  apostle  ?  Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord? 
1  Cor.  ix.  1.  (rf)  I  have  examined  the  case  of  Ti- 
mothy, of  Titus,  of  Barnabas,  and  of  the  "  angels" 
of  the  churches — the  slender  basis  on  which,  in  the 
absence  of  direct  command  to  continue  the  succession, 
and  direct  affirmation  that  it  would  be  continued, 
the  whole  fabric  of  Episcopacy  has  been  reared. 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  have  come  is,  that, 
while  this  was  a  most  important  and  wise  arrange- 
ment in  the  organization  of  the  church,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  evidence  that  the  Redeemer  intended 
that  it  should  be  perpetual ;  that  it  is  impossible  to 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  193 

make  out  the  fact  of  such  a  "succession;"  and  con- 
sequently that  the  whole  claim  that  the  "  bishop" 
is  the  "  successor"  of  the  apostles1  is  a  usurpation 
of  authority  in  the  church.  The  organization  of  the 
Christian  church  is  complete  without  any  such 
"  succession" — or  such  officers — as  really  as  it  is 
without  the  "order"  of  "deaconesses,"  and  with- 
out the  "order"  of  the  "seventy  disciples." 

(2.)  There  were  special  ministers  sent  out  for  a 
temporary  purpose  by  the  Lord  Jesus  himself: 
"  After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  other  se- 
venty also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  his 
face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither  he  himself 
would  come."  Luke  x.  1.  These  persons  were 
(a)  evidently  appointed  for  a  different  purpose  from 
the  apostles.  The  apostles,  as  has  been  shown, 
were  to  be  with  him,  to  hear  his  instructions,  to  be 
witnesses  of  his  miracles,  his  sufferings,  his  death, 
and  his  resurrection,  and  then  to  go  and  proclaim 
those  things  to  the  world;  and,  having  done  this, 
the  apostolic  office  was  to  cease.  The  object  of  the 
appointment  of  the  "  seventy"  is  expressed,  and  we 
have  no  right  to  go  beyond  that  in  interpreting  their 
commission.  They  were  to  "  go  two  and  two  into 
every  city  and  place,  whither  he  himself  would  come" 
This  was  the  extent  of  their  commission.  It  was  to 
proclaim  the  coming  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  pre- 
pare the  way  for  his  personal  preaching  there,  evi- 
dently by  calling  the  minds  of  the  people  to  his  claims, 

17 


194  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

to  the.  remarkable  character  of  his  preaching,  to  his 
power  in  working  miracles,  and  to  the  evidence  that 
he  was  the  Messiah.  There  is  no  commission  to  go 
out  of  Judea,  as  the  Saviour  evidently  did  not  design 
himself  to  go  out  of  Judea;  and  there  is  no  com- 
mission to  the  appointment  as  a  permanent  office. 
(b)  They  were  appointed  to  a  temporary  office.  This 
appears  from  the  nature  of  the  commission,  and  from 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  reference  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  any  persons  who  claimed  to  be  the  "suc- 
cessors" of  the  "seventy."  There  is  no  record  of 
their  number  having  been  filled  up  when  one  of  them 
died,  nor  is  there  any  intimation  whatever  of  the 
permanency  of  their  office.  We  never  hear  them 
alluded  to  as  having  a  fixed  office  in  the  church;  nor 
in  the  appointment  of  any  class  of  ministers  is  there 
any  intimation  that  they  were  to  succeed  the  "  se- 
venty" disciples.  In  the  accounts  of  the  churches 
which  were  organized  by  the  apostles  there  is  no 
allusion  to  them,  nor  does  it  appear  to  have  ever 
occurred  that  any  reference  was  to  be  had  to  them 
in  the  organization  of  a  church. 

If  this  be  so, — and  that  it  is,  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  New  Testament  will  deny, — then  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  "  seventy  disciples"  should  not  be 
urged  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  ministry  was 
established  in  "  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons."  Between  the  appointment  of  the  seventy, 
as  the  record  is  made  in  Luke,  and  the  office  of  a 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  105 

"priest"  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  there  is  no  re- 
semblance whatever.  There  is  no  evidence,  as  has 
been  remarked,  that  it  was  to  be  permanent ;  there  is 
no  intimation  that  they  were  to  be  subject  to  the 
"  bishops" — the  apostles;  or  that  they  might  not 
ordain,  or  might  not  administer  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion, or  that  they  might  not  administer  discipline,  or 
that  they  might  not  take  the  oversight  of  a  "  diocese." 
All  this  is  language  unknown  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment; and  the  simple  and  obvious  account  of  the 
appointment  of  the  "  seventy"  is,  that  they  were  em- 
ployed by  the  Saviour  to  prepare  tl?e  way  for  his  per- 
sonal ministry  in  the  places  where  he  proposed  to  go. 
(3.)  There  were  in  the  apostolic  church,  also, 
"prophets"  who,  unless  they  were  classed  under 
the  denomination  of  "  teachers,"  were  designed  only 
to  be  temporary  in  the  duration  of  their  office.  Acts 
xiii.  1 :  "  There  were  in  the  church  at  Antioch  cer- 
tain prophets  and  teachers;"  xv.  32  :  "And  Judas 
and  Silas  being  prophets  also  themselves."  1  Cor. 
xii.  28 :  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church — se- 
condarily— prophets"  Ver.  29  :  "  Are  2l\\  prophets?" 
Eph.  iv.  11 :  "And  he  gave  some  prophets."  1  Cor. 
xiv.  3 :  "  He  that  prophesieth  speaketh  unto  men 
to  edification,  and  exhortation,  and  comfort."  Ver.  5 : 
"  I  would  that  ye  all  spake  with  tongues,  but  rather 
that  ye  prophesied  ;  for  greater  is  he  that  prophesieth 
than  he  that  speaketh  with  tongues."  Ver.  22 : 
"  Tongues  are  for  a  sign,  not  to  them  that  believe, 


196  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

but  to  them  that  believe  not;  but  prophecy  serveth 
not  for  them  that  believe  not,  but  for  them  that  be- 
lieve." Ver.  29:  "Let  the  prophets  speak  two  or 
three,  and  let  the  others  judge."'  There  is  some 
evidence  that  the  persons  here  referred  to  were  under 
the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 
they  were  therefore  appointed  in  an  extraordinary 
manner  in  the  circumstances  in  which  the  church 
was  placed  when  newly  founded,  and  when  it  needed 
special  guidance  and  direction.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence whatever  that  the  office  of  "  prophet"  was  in- 
tended to  be  permanent. 

(4.)  Under  this  denomination  of  officers  that  were 
not  designed  to  be  permanent,  may  be  ranked  also 
the  office  of  deaconess.  Rom.  xvi.  1 :  "  I  commend 
unto  you  Phebe,  our  sister,  which  is  a  servant — 
dtdxovov — of  the  church  which  is  at  Cenchrea." 
Comp.  1  Tim.  v.  3,  9-11;  Titus  ii.  3,  4.  Deaconesses 
appear  to  have  been  commonly  aged  widows,  sus- 
taining a  fair  reputation,  and  qualified  to  guide  and 
instruct  those  who  were  young  and  inexperienced. 
The  "  apostolical  constitutions"  say :  "  Ordain  a 
deaconess  who  is  faithful  and  holy,  for  the  minis- 
tries toward  the  women."  Book  iii.  Pliny,  in  his 
celebrated  letter  to  Trajan,  says,  when  speaking  of 
the  efforts  which  he  made  to  obtain  information  re- 
specting the  opinions  and  practices  of  Christians : 
'*  I  deemed  it  necessary  to  put  two  maid-servants, 
who  are  called  ministrse,  [deacon esses,~\  to  the  tor- 


01'   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  197 

ture,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  truth."  The  rea- 
son for  their  appointment  in  the  early  churches  of 
the  Gentiles  was  probably  the  fact,  that  in  the  East, 
females  are  kept  secluded  from  men,  and  are  not  per- 
mitted to  mingle  freely  in  society,  as  is  the  case  in 
the  "Western  nations.  It  became  necessary,  therefore, 
to  appoint  aged  and  experienced  females  to  instruct 
the  young  of  their  sex,  to  visit  the  sick,  and  to  distri- 
bute to  them  the  alms  of  the  church.  From  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  however,  the  necessity  of  this  office 
would  not  exist  in  those  countries  where  these  customs 
did  not  prevail ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  it  was  designed  to  be  permanent  in  the  church.* 

II.  Permanent  officers  mentioned  in  the  organiza- 
tion  of  the  church  in  the  New  Testament.  These 
officers  are  : 

(1.)  Those  designated  by  various  terms,  denoting 
that  they  were  set  apart  or  appointed  to  preach  the 
gospel,  to  impart  instruction,  and  to  take  the  over- 

*  It  may  be  a  question,  however,  whether  it  would  not  be 
well  to  revive  this  order  in  the  church.  There  is  a  large  cla?a 
of  females  in  most  churches,  especially  in  cities,  who  cannot,  in 
any  proper  sense  and  to  any  suitable  degree,  be  under  the 
supervision  of  a  pastor.  They  are  those  who  have  bad  little 
early  training  in  religion,  who  are  not  connected  with  pious 
families,  many  of  whom  are  employed  as  domestics,  and  who 
peculiarly  need  instruction  in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  reli- 
gion. Some  of  them  are  too  old  to  be  in  Sabbath-schools,  and 
many  of  them  could  not  be  well  collected  in  Bible  classes  ;  but 
they  could  with  great  propriety  be  placed  under  the  care  of 
more  aged  and  experienced  females  in  the  church,  whose  spe- 
cial duty  it  should  be  to  visit  them,  to  counsel  them,  to  instruct 
them,  and  to  aid  them  in  the  divine  life. 

17* 


198  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

sight  of  the  flock.  This  class  of  persons  is  men- 
tioned under  different  appellations — as  preachers, 
bishops,  pastors,  teachers,  evangelists;  but  all  of 
them  in  such  a  connection  and  form,  that  it  is  evident 
that  the  arrangement  was  intended  to  be  permanent, 

(a)  The  office  of  preacher  was  designed  to  be  per- 
manent, for  the  Saviour  gave  direction  to  his  apostles 
to  "  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature,"  assuring  them  that  he  would  be 
"  with  them  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'' 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  Comp.  Rom.  x.  14, 15;  2  Tim. 
iv.  2.  That  the  office  was  designed  to  be  permanent, 
is  made  certain  from  the  instruction  which  Paul  gives 
to  Timothy :  "  And  the  things  which  thou  hast  heard 
of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou 
to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 
also."  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 

(6)  The  office  of  bishop,  or  overseer  of  the  flock, 
in  the  true  scriptural  sense — as  a  pastor  of  a  parti- 
cular church — was  designed  to  be  permanent  also. 
"  The  name  '  bishop/  which  now  designates  the 
highest  grade  in  the  ministry,"  says  Dr.  Onderdonk, 
(Tract,  p.  12,)  "  is  not  appropriated  to  that  office  in 
Scripture.  That  name  is  given  to  the  middle  office 
or  presbyters ;  and  ALL  that  we  read  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament concerning  '  bishops'  is  to  be  regarded  as  ap- 
pertaining to  that  middle  grade.  It  was  after  the 
apostolic  age  that  the  name  '  bishop'  was  taken  from 
the  second  order  and  appropriated  to  the  first."    The 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  199 

»ffice  of  "bishop,"  as  it  was  used  in  the  "apostolic 
age," — denoting  an  "overseer," — is  designed  to  be 
permanent  in  the  church.  This  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  instructions  were  given  which  implied  this  : 
"  If  a  man  desireth  the  office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth 
a  good  work.  A  bishop,  then,  must  be  blameless, 
the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good  be- 
haviour, given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not  given 
to  wine."  1  Tim.  iii.  1-7;  Titus  i.  7-9;  Acts  xx. 
28;  Phil.  i.  1.  The  appointment  of  bishops  in  the 
churches  by  the  apostles,  and  the  instructions  to 
Timothy  in  regard  to  their  qualifications,  prove  that 
it  was  understood  that  the  arrangement  was  to  be 
permanent.  No  such  instructions  are  given  in  re- 
gard to  the  qualifications  of  "apostles,"  or  of  pre- 
lates, as  the  "  successors  of  the  apostles,"  or  of  those 
who  were  to  succeed  the  ''  seventy  disciples,"  or  of 
those  who  were  to  succeed  the  "prophets."  Those 
things  were,  therefore,  of  a  temporary  character; 
this  was  a  fixed  arrangement. 

(f)  The  office  of  pastor — another  name  for  the 
office  of  "  bishop" — was  designed  to  be  permanent, 
for  the  same  reason  that  instructions  are  given  which 
imply  this,  and  that  the  office  is  mentioned  in  such 
a  connection  as  to  show  that  this  was  designed  : 
"And  he  gave  some,  apostles;  and  some,  prophets; 
and  some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  jmstors  and 
teachers;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body 


200  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

of  Christ :  till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God  unto  a  per 
feet  man."  Eph.  iv.  11,  12.  This  passage  proves 
that  some  at  least  of  these  offices  were  to  be  perma- 
nent in  the  church.  That  it  was  designed  that  the 
pastoral  office  should  be  one  of  them,  is  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  the  word  is  applied  to  the  office 
in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  was  a  permanent 
arrangement.  The  word  "  pastor,"  indeed,  in  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  Eph.  iv.  11,  does  not 
elsewhere  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  have 
our  translators  rendered  the  same  word  pastor  else- 
where. It  occurs  often  in  the  sense  of  shepherd, 
and  is  uniformly  elsewhere  so  rendered.  Matt.  ix. 
36;  xxv.  32;  xxvi.  31;  Mark  vi.  34;  xiv.  27;  Luke 
ii.  8,  15,  18,  20;  John  x.  2,  11,  12,  14,  16;  Heb. 
xiii.  20;  1  Pet.  ii.  25.  But  the  verb  (irotfia&at)  is 
so  used  as  to  denote  that  the  office  was  to  be  of  a 
permanent  character.  John  xxi.  16  :  "  He  saith  to 
him,  Feed — iroipuuve — my  sheep."  This  was  indeed 
addressed  to  Peter;  but  that  he  understood  it  as 
contemplating  a  permanent  arrangement  in  the 
church,  is  apparent  from  his  own  instructions  given 
to  the  elders  of  the  church  :  "  The  elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder,  feed — 
xotjidvaTe — the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
taking  the  oversight  thereof  [exercising  the  office 
of  a  bishop — 1-iax.o-ouvTsq] — not  by  constraint,  but 
willingly."  1  Pet.  v.  1,  2.    Comp.  1  Cor.  ix.  7. 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  201 

(«?)  The  office  of  teacher  was  designed  to  be  per- 
manent. Eph.  iv.  11  :  "  He  gave  some  teachers.11 
"And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church — thirdly, 
teachers.'1  1  Cor.  xii.  28;  Gal.  vi.  6:  "  Let  him 
that  is  taught  in  the  word  communicate  to  him  that 
teacheth  in  all  good  things/'  Rom.  xii.  7  :  "  Or  he 
that  teacheth  on  teaching."  Comp.  Acts  xiii.  1 ; 
ICor.  xii.  29;  2  Pet.  ii.  1. 

(e)  The  office  of  an  evangelist,  or  of  a  publisher 
of  the  gospel,  was  designed  to  be  permanent  in  the 
church.  Eph.  iv.  11 :  "He  gave  some  era^e//s^." 
2  Tim.  iv.  5  :  "  But  watch  thou  in  all  things,  do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist."    Comp.  Acts  xxi.  8. 

All  these  offices  relate  to  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  and  to  the  proper  care  and  oversight  of  the 
church,  and  might  evidently  be  united  in  the  same 
person.  There  is  no  incompatibility  in  the  offices 
themselves  which  would  prevent  this,  aDd  there  is 
every  reason  to  suppose  that  they  were  thus  united. 
Nay,  there  is  positive  evidence  that  in  the  case  of 
Timothy  and  of  some  of  the  apostles  they  were  thus 
uuited.  They  are  not  incompatible  now  ;  and  there 
is  the  same  evidence  that  they  were  intended  to  be 
permanent  that  there  is  that  the  church  itself  was 
designed  to  be  permanent. 

(2.)  There  were  riders,  or  ruling  elders,  in  the 
church,  who  are  so  mentioned  as  to  make  it  probable 
that  it  was  designed  that  there  should  be  in  every 
church  such  officers  to  direct  and  govern  its  affairs 


202  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

That  the  permanent  officers  already  referred  to  were 
authorized  to  exercise  government  over  the  church, 
in  addition  to  the  duty  of  preaching,  of  pastoral 
supervision,  and  of  teaching,  is  evident  from  many 
places  in  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  by  the 
names  by  which  they  are  designated ;  but  there  is 
also  evidence  that  there  was,  in  some  churches  at 
least,  a  distinct  class  of  men  to  whom  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  was  especially  confided.  In 
cases  where  a  church  was  established  where  there 
had  been  a  synagogue,  it  seems  most  probable  that 
the  apostles  would  make  use  of  the  existing  organiza- 
tion in  its  government,  and  engraft  the  Christian 
church  on  that  religious  community  which  they 
found  already  in  existence.  On  this  point,  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  of  Archbishop  Whately  seem  so 
well  founded,  that  they  must  commend  themselves 
to  every  one  as  founded  in  truth  : — 

"  It  appears  highly  probable — I  might  say  mo- 
rally certain  —  that  wherever  a  Jewish  synagogue 
existed  that  was  brought — the  whole  or  the  chief 
part  of  it — to  embrace  the  gospel,  the  apostles  did 
not  there  so  much,  form  a  Christian  church  (or  con- 
gregation ;  ecclesia)  as  make  an  existing  congre- 
gation Christian;  by  introducing  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments and  worship,  and  establishing  whatever  regu- 
lations were  requisite  for  the  newly-adopted  faith; 
leaving  the  machinery  (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  govern- 
ment unchanged ;  the  l  rulers  of  synagogues/  elders, 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  203 

and  other  officers  (whether  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical, 
or  both)  being  already  provided  in  the  existing  in- 
stitutions. And  it  is  likely  that  several  of  the  earliest 
Christian  churches  did  originate  in  this  way  ;  that 
is,  that  they  were  converted  synagogues,  which  he- 
came  Christian  churches  as  soon  as  the  members,  or 
the  main  part  of  the  members,  acknowledged  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah. 

"  The  attempt  to  effect  this  conversion  of  a  Jewish 
synagogue  into  a  Christian  church  seems  always  to 
have  been  made,  in  the  first  instance,  in  every  place 
where  there  was  an  opening  for  it.  Even  after  the 
call  of  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  it  appears  plainly  to 
have  been  the  practice  of  the  apostles  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  when  they  came  to  any  city  in  which 
there  was  a  synagogue,  to  go  thither  first  and  deliver 
their  sacred  message  to  the  Jews  and  *  devout  (or 
proselyte)  Gentiles/  according  to  their  own  ex- 
pression, (Acts  xiii.  16,)  to  the  'men  of  Israel  and 
those  that  feared  God/  adding,  that  'it  was  neces- 
sary that  the  word  of  God  should  first  be  preached 
to  them.' 

"  And  when  they  found  a  church  in  any  of  those 
cities  in  which  (and  such  were,  probably,  a  very 
large  majority)'  there  was  no  Jewish  synagogue 
that  received  the  gospel,  it  is  likely  that  they  would 
still  conform,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  same 
model.''* 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  g  9. 


204  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

But  there  is  also  express  mention  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament of  permanent  officers  appointed  to  rule  the 
church,  as  distinct  from  the  teachers  and  pastors. 
1  Cor.  xii.  28:  "And  God  hath  set  some  in  the 
church,  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  prophets;  thirdly, 
teachers;  after  that,  miracles;"  that  is,  those  who 
had  the  power  of  working  miracles;  "then  gifts  of 
healing,"  or  those  who  had  the  power  of  healing  the 
sick;  "helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues." 
The  idea  here  is,  undoubtedly,  that  there  were  those 
who  were  appointed  in  the  church  to  the  business 
of  ruling — as  there  were  for  prophesying,  or  for 
teaching,  or  for  healing  the  sick.  Whether  it  refers 
to  a  distinct  class  of  men  who  were  set  apart  to  this 
work,  and  who  were  to  be  a  permanent  "  order"  in 
the  church,  cannot,  from  this  passage,  be  determined 
with  certainty,  and  is  not  now  material.  All  that  is 
necessary  to  be  observed  is,  that  there  were  those 
who  were  distinct  from  the  "  apostles,"  and  the 
"  prophets,"  and  the  "  teachers,"  whose  office  it  was 
to  administer  the  government  of  the  church.  The 
same  thing  is  apparent  from  1  Tim.  v.  17  :  "  Let  the 
elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the  word  and 
doctrine."  The  plain  meaning  of  tnis  passage  is,  that 
while  there  were  "  elders"  who  laboured  in  "  the 
word  and  doctrine,"  that  is,  in  preaching,  there  were 
also  those  who  did  not  labour  in  "word  and  doctrine," 
but  who  yet  were  appointed  to  "  rule"  in  the  church. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC   CTITJRCH.  205 

(3.)  There  were  in  the  church,  as  it  was  organized 
by  the  apostles,  those  who  administered  the  office  of 
deacons ;  and  this  office  is  so  mentioned  as  to  make 
it  evident  that  it  was  designed  to  be  permanent.  Acts 
vi.  1-6.  The  office,  as  there  designated,  was  to  take 
the  charge  of  the  poor,  and  to  administer  to  them 
the  alms  of  the  church.  This  office  is  subsequently 
referred  to  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  was  not 
designed  to  be  a  temporary  appointment.  Thus,  the 
church  of  Philippi  was  organized  with  such  a  class 
of  officers,  and  that  class  remained  at  the  time  when 
the  apostle  addressed  them  from  Rome  :  "  Paul  and 
Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  saints 
in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deaco?is."  Phil.  i.  1.  So  in  1  Tim.  iii.  8-10,  the 
qualifications  of  "deacons"  are  so  mentioned  as  to 
show  that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent  office  in  the 
church  :  "  Likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave,  not 
double-tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy 
of  filthy  lucre,  holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a 
pure  conscience.  And  let  these  also  be  first  proved, 
then  let  them  use  the  office  of  a  deacon,  being  found 
blameless."  "  Let  the  deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one 
wife,  ruling  their  children  and  their  own  houses  well. 
For  they  that  use  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  purchase 
to  themselves  a  good  degree,  and  great  boldness  in 
the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."    Verses  12,  13. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that,  in  the  epistles  to  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  the  apostle  was  addressing  those 

18 


206  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

who  were  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  who  were 
especially  and  expressly  intrusted  with  the  organizing 
of  churches,  and  the  appointment  of  officers  over 
them,  (1  Tim.  i.  3,  4;  Titus  i.  5;)  and  it  will  contri- 
bute to  illustrate  what  has  been  said  about  the  per- 
manent offices  of  the  church,  to  remark  that  in  these 
epistles  there  are  no  instructions  given  about  appoint- 
ing any  to  be  the  "  successors  of  the  apostles"  or  to 
the  apostolic  office  j  none  in  regard  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  those  who  should  succeed  the  "  seventy  dis- 
ciples j"  none  in  reference  to  the  institution  of  "  pro- 
phets;" and  none  in  reference  to  the  appointment 
of  "  deaconesses ;"  unless  1  Tim.  v.  3,  9-11,  and 
Titus  ii.  3,  4,  should  be  regarded  as  such.  This 
circumstance  is  an  additional  consideration  to  show 
that  those  were  not  designed  to  be  permanent  offices 
in  the  church,  but  that  they  were  temporary  in  their 
nature.  It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  in  formal 
letters  to  two  ministers  of  religion,  occupied  mainly 
with  instructions  respecting  the  officers  and  the 
government  of  the  church,  there  should  have  been 
such  an  omission  if  those  offices  had  been  designed 
to  be  of  a  permanent  character. 

(4.)  There  is  evidence  in  the  New  Testament 
that  it  was  intended  that  there  should  be  a  perma- 
nent relation  between  a  minister  of  the  gospel  and 
a  particular  church  j  or  that  the  pastoral  relation 
should  exist.  The  evidence  of  this  is  found  in  the 
following  considerations  :  — 

(a)  The  name  pastor,  already  adverted  to,  which 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  207 

naturally  implies  the  existence  of  the  correlative 
pastoral  charge — as  the  name  "  shepherd"  naturally 
implies  that  there  is  a  flock. 

(b)  The  duty  enjoined  on  the  churches  to  provide 
for  the  wants  of  the  ministers  of  religion,  also,  na- 
turally implies  the  existence  of  this  relation.  It 
could  scarcely  be  inculcated  as  a  duty  to  support  the 
ministry  in  general,  or  those  to  whom  they  sustained 
no  special  relation;  and  the  duty  is,  in  fact,  enjoined 
on  them  to  support  those  who  laboured  especially  for 
their  benefit.  Gal.  vi.  6:  "  Let  him  that  is  taught 
in  the  word  communicate  [impart]  unto  him  that 
teacheth  in  all  good  things."  1  Cor.  ix.  7  :  "  Who 
goeth  a  warfare  any  time  at  his  own  charges  ?  who 
planteth  a  vineyard,  and  eateth  not  of  the  fruit 
thereof?  or  who  feedeth  a  flock,  and  eateth  not  of 
the  milk  of  the  flock?"  Ver.  11:  "  If  we  have 
sown  unto  you  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great  thing  if 
we  shall  reap  your  carnal  things  ?"  Ver.  14  :  "  Even 
so  hath  the  Lord  ordained,  that  they  which  preach 
the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel." 

(c)  Such  permanent  officers  or  pastors  were  ap- 
pointed in  the  church  at  Ephesus.  In  the  discourse 
of  the  apostle  Paul  to  the  "  elders"  of  the  church 
there,  when  assembled  at  Miletus,  he  addresses  them 
as  appointed  to  watch  and  guard  and  govern  the 
church,  evidently  with  the  understanding  that  they 
had  been  appointed  to  their  oflice  as  a  permanent 
relation  between  them  and  the  church  there.  "  Take 
heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock, 


208  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  over- 
seers, to  feed  the  church  of  God  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood.  For  I  know  this,  that 
after  my  departure  shall  grievous  wolves  enter  in 
among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock."     Acts  xx.  28,  29. 

(d)  The  church  at  Philippi  was  likewise  organ- 
ized with  those  who  are  addressed  as  sustaining  a 
permanent  relation  to  the  church.  "  Paul  and  Timo- 
theus — to  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at 
Philippi,  with  the  BISHOPS  (gov  I-lgxotzok; — comp. 
the  account  of  the  "  elders"  of  Ephesus,  Acts  xx. 
28,  "over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
bishops" — l-MTzu-oos,^  and  deacons."  Phii.  i.  1.  The 
office  of  "  bishop,"  or  pastor,  therefore,  in  the  churches 
at  Philippi  and  Ephesus,  was  a  permanent  office. 

(e)  The  same  thing  evidently  existed  in  the 
churches  in  Crete.  Thus  Paul  says  to  Titus,  "  For 
this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst 
set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain 
elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee."  Tit. 
i.  5.  This  relation,  therefore,  was  to  be  constituted 
in  every  city  where  there  was  a  church,  and  as  this 
instruction  was  given  to  one  who  was  himself  a 
minister  of  religion,  and  who  was  set  apart  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  in  the  organization  of  Christian 
churches,  it  follows  that  this  was  designed  to  be  a 
permanent  relation. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  it  was  contemplated  that 
there  should  be  permanent  officers  in  the  church, 
and  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine  what  they  were; 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  209 

nor  to  ascertain  from  the  New  Testament  what  offi- 
cer? were  appointed  only  for  a  temporary  purpose. 

Sect.  2. —  The  actual  organization  and  government 
of  the  church,  as  described  in  the  New  Testament. 

If  the  above  views  are  correct,  then  but  one  in- 
quiry now  remains.  It  is,  in  what  way  was  the 
government  and  discipline  of  the  church  actually 
administered?  Who  appointed  and  ordained  to  the 
office  of  the  ministry?  Who  administered  disci- 
pline? Was  this  done  solely  by  the  "  prelate"  ? 
Was  ordination  performed  by  him  alone  ?  Had  he 
alone  the  right  to  admit  members  to  the  church, 
and  to  exclude  them  from  it  ? — The  positions  which 
have  been  already  taken  on  this  subject  will  be 
strengthened  by  a  brief  view  of  the  actual  state- 
ments in  the  Xew  Testament.     I  observe,  then, 

1.    That  presbyters  had  the  right  of  ordaining. 

If  this  can  be  made  out,  then  it  will  be  an  addi- 
tional consideration  to  show  that  the  main  point 
claimed  for  the  superiority  of  bishops  is  unfounded. 
I  proceed  now,  therefore,  to  show  that  there  is 
positive  proof  that  presbyters  did  ordain.  I  have 
shown,  in  the  course  of  the  argument,  that  they 
exercised  the  office  of  discipline — one  of  the  things 
claimed  peculiarly  for  bishops ;  and  I  now  proceed 
to  prove,  that  the  office  of  ordaining  was  one  which 
was  intrusted  to  them,  and  which  they  exercised. 
If  this  point  is  demonstrated,  then  it  will  follow  still 

18* 


210  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

further,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  of  the  apos- 
tles was  not  that  they  ordained,  and  that  the  clergy 
of  the  New  Testament  are  not  divided  into  "  three 
orders,"  but  are  equal  in  ministerial  rank  and  power. 
The  argument  is  indeed  complete  without  this;  for, 
unless  Episcopalians  can  show,  by  positive  proof, 
the  claims  of  their  prelates  to  the  right  of  ordination 
and  discipline,  the  parity  of  the  clergy  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course. 

I  am  a  Presbyterian.  But  my  argument  does 
not  require  that  I  should  go  largely  into  a  defence 
of  the  form  of  church  government  which  I  regard 
as  most  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  leading  object  of  this  "  In- 
quiry" is  to  disprove  Episcopacy ;  and  the  conclu- 
sion which  will  be  reached  on  this  point  is  one  in 
which  all  who  are  not  Episcopalians  will  coincide. 
All  Protestant  denominations,  with  the  single  excep- 
tion of  the  comparatively  small  sect  of  Episcopa- 
lians, are  agreed  in  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  the 
parity  of  the  clergy,  and  the  maintenance  of  this  is 
the  essential  feature  in  which  they  differ  from  the 
advocates  of  Prleacy.  If  the  claims  of  Episcopacy 
in  regard  to  the  "three  grades"  are  disproved,  it 
follows  that  the  clergy  are  on  an  equality.  If  it  is 
shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is 
that  presbyters  are  to  ordain,  it  is  a  sufficient  dis- 
posal of  the  "  feeble  claims  of  lay-ordination,"  and 
of  all  other  claims.  It  will  follow,  that  a  valid  ordi- 
nation is  that  which  is   performed  in  accordance 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  211 

with  the  direction  that  presbyters  should  ordain.  It 
will  follow  also,  as  has  been  remarked,  that  Epis- 
copal ordination  is  valid,  not  because  it  is  performed 
by  a  prelate,  but  because  it  is  in  fact  a  mere  Pres- 
byterian performance.     See  pp.  123-126. 

In  proof  of  the  point  now  before  us,  therefore,  I 
adduce  1  Tim.  iv.  14:  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is 
in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery." 
This  passage,  which,  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, affirms  the  very  thing  under  discussion,  it  is 
evidently  material  for  Episcopalians  to  dispose  of,  or 
their  claim  to  exclusive  rights  and  privileges  are 
forever  destroyed.  I  shall,  therefore,  examine  the 
passage,  and  then  notice  the  objections  to  its  obvious 
and  common-sense  interpretation,  alleged  by  Epis- 
copalians. 

I  observe  then,  (1.)  That  the  translation  is  fairly 
made.  Much  learned  criticism  has  been  exhausted, 
to  very  little  purpose,  by  Episcopalians,  to  show 
that  a  difference  exists  between  "  with"  (jierd)  in 
this  place,  and  "  by"  (did)  in  2  Tim.  i.  6.  It  has 
been  said,  "  that  such  a  distinction  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  intimating,  that  the  virtue  of  the  or- 
daining act  flowed  from  Paul,  while  the  presbytery, 
or  the  rest  of  that  body,  if  he  were  included  in  it, 
expressed  only  consent."  Tract,  p.  22.  But  it  has 
never  been  shown,  nor  can  it  be,  that  the  preposition 
"with"  does  not  fairly  express  the  force  of  the  ori- 
ginal.     The  same  observation   may  be  applied  to 


212  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

the  word  "  presbytery/'  (jrpsffjSoriptov^)  It  denotes 
properly  an  assembly  or  council  of  elders,  or  pres- 
byters—  Versammliuuj  od.  Rath  der  Aelteren.  Pas- 
sow.  In  Luke  xxii.  6G,  it  is  applied  to  the  body 
of  elders  which  composed  the  Sanhedrim,  or  Great 
Council  of  the  Jews,  and  is  translated  "  the  elders  of 
the  people :"  to  rtpzaftuTipur;  too  kaob.  See  also,  Acts 
xxii.  5:  "the  estate  of  the  elders."  The  word  oc- 
curs nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  except 
in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Dr.  Onderdonk 
has  endeavoured  to  show,  that  it  means  "  the  office 
to  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  the  persons 
who  ordained  him  ;  so  that  the  passage  would  read, 
'with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the  presby- 
terate,'  or  presbytership,  or  the  clerical  office;"  and 
appeals  to  the  authority  of  Grotius  and  Calvin,  in 
the  case.  Tract,  pp.  19,  20.  In  regard  to  this  in- 
terpretation, I  observe,  (a)  That  if  this  be  correct, 
then  it  follows,  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle, 
but  an  elder, — he  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  the 
presbyterate,  or  the  eldership.  Timothy,  then,  is 
to  be  laid  out  of  the  college  of  apostles,  and  reduced 
to  the  humble  office  of  a  presbyter.  When  prelacy 
is  to  be  established  by  showing  that  the  office  of 
apostles  was  transmitted,  Timothy  is  an  apostle; 
when  it  is  necessary  to  make  another  use  of  this 
same  man,  it  appears  that  he  was  ordained  to  the 
presbyterate,  and  he  becomes  an  humble  presbyter, — 
a  "  nose  of  wax"  of  great  convenience  to  the  argu- 
ment of  Episcopacy.     But,  (b)  If  the  word  "  pres- 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  213 

bytery"  (TzpEafturipwv)  here  means  \he  presbyterate, 
and  not  the  persons,  then  it  doubtless  means  the 
same  in  the  two  other  places  where  it  occurs.  In 
Luke  xxii.  66,  then,  we  receive  the  information  that 
"the  presbyterate,"  "the  presbytership,"  or  "the 
clerical  office"  of  the  people,  that  is,  the  body  by 
which  the  people  conferred  "  the  presbyterate," 
came  together  with  the  scribes.  In  Acts  xxii.  5, 
we  are  informed,  that  the  "presbyterate,"  or  "the 
clerical  office,"  would  bear  witness  with  the  high- 
priest  to  the  life  of  Paul.  Such  absurdities  show  the 
propriety  of  adhering,  in  interpretation,  to  the  ob- 
vious and  usual  meaning  of  the  words,  (c)  The 
word  is  fixed  in  its  meaning,  in  the  usage  of  the 
church.  Suicer  (Thesaurus)  says,  it  denotes  "  an 
assembly,  congregation,  and  college  of  presbyters 
in  the  Christian  church."  In  all  the  instances  which 
he  quotes  from  Theodoret,  (on  1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  from 
Chrysostom,  (Homil.  xiii.  on  this  epistle,)  from 
Theophylact,  (in  loc.)  and  from  Ignatius,  (Epis. 
to  Antioch,  and  to  the  Trallians,)  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  that  it  is  ever  used  to  denote  the 
office,  instead  of  the  persons,  of  the  presbytery. 
(d)  As  the  opinion  of  Grotius  is  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  I  will  quote  here  a  passage  from  his 
commentary  on  this  place.  "  The  custom  was,  that 
the  presbyters  who  were  present  placed  their  hands 
on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  at  the  same  time  with 
the  presiding  officer  of  their  body,"  cum  coetus  sui 
principe.     "  Where  the  apostles,  or  their  assistants, 


214  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

were  not  present,  ordination  took  place  by  the  pre- 
siding officer  (Praesidem)  of  their  body,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  presbytery," — consentiente  pres- 
byter io.     It  is  particularly  surprising  that  the  autho- 
rity of  Calvin  should  have  been  adduced  as  sanc- 
tioning that  interpretation  which   refers  the  word 
presbytery  to  office,  and  not  to  persons.     His  words 
are,    "  They   who  interpret  presbytery,   here,   as  a 
collective  noun,  denoting  the  college  of  presbyters, 
are,  in  my  judgment,  right."   My  first  argument,  then, 
is,  that  the  word  "  presbytery,"  denoting  the  persons 
who  composed  the  body,  or  college  of  elders,  is  the 
proper,  obvious,  and  established  sense  of  the  passage. 
(2.)  It  is  evident,  from  this  passage,  that  whoever 
else  might  have  been  engaged  in  this  transaction,  a 
material  part  of  it  belonged  to  the  presbytery  or  elder- 
ship concerned.     "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy  ;  WITH  THE  LAY- 
ING ON  OF  THE  HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY."     Here 

it  is  evident,  that  the  presbytery  bore  a  material  part 
in  the  transaction.  Paul  says,  that  the  gift  which  was 
in  Timothy  was  given  him  hyprojihecy,  with  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  That  is,  that 
some  prophecies  relating  to  Timothy  (comp.  1  Tim. 
i.  18,  "  according  to  the  prophecies  which  went  be- 
fore in  thee")  had  designated  him  as  a  proper  person 
for  the  ministry,  or  that  it  had  been  predicted  that 
he  would  be  employed  in  the  ministry;  but  the 
prophecy  did  not  invest  him  with  the  office — did  not 
confer  the  gift.      That  was  done — that  formal  ap- 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  215 

pointment  fulfilling  the  prophecy — by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  It  was  necessary 
that  that  act  of  the  presbytery  should  thus  concur 
with  the  prophecy,  or  Timothy  would  have  remained 
a  layman.  The  presbyters  laid  their  hands  on  him, 
and  he  thus  received  his  office.  As  the  prophecy 
made  no  part  of  his  ordination,  it  follows  that  he 
was  ordained  by  the  presbytery. 

(3.)  The  statement  here  is  just  such  a  one  as 
would  be  given  now  in  a  Presbyterian  ordination ;  it 
is  not  one  which  would  be  made  in  an  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation. A  Presbyterian  would  choose  these  very  words 
to  give  an  account  of  an  ordination  in  his  church; 
an  Episcopalian  would  not.  The  former  speaks  of 
ordination  by  a  presbytery ;  the  latter,  of  ordination 
by  a  bishop.  The  former  can  use  the  account  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  here,  as  applicable  to  ordination,  with- 
out explanations,  comments,  new  versions,  or  criti- 
cisms; the  latter  cannot.  The  passage  speaks  to 
the  common  understanding  of  men,  in  favour  of 
Presbyterian  ordination — of  the  action  of  a  presby- 
tery in  the  case ;  it  never  speaks  the  language  of 
Episcopacy,  even  after  all  the  torture  to  which  it 
may  be  subjected  by  Episcopal  criticism.  The  pas- 
sage is  one,  too,  which  is  not  like  that  which  speaks 
of  the  " apostles  and  elders,"  "the  apostles,  and 
elders,  and  brethren/ '  the  only  direct  passage  on  which 
Episcopacy  relies,  and  which  has  no  perceptible  con- 
nection with  the  case;  but  it  is  one  which  speaks  on 
the  very  subject — which  relates  to  the  exact  trans- 


216  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

action,  and  which  makes  a  positive  affirmation  of  the 
very  thing  in  debate. 

(4.)  The  supposition  that  this  was  not  a  presby- 
terial  transaction  renders  the  passage  unmeaning. 
Here  was  present  a  body  of  men  called  a  presby- 
tery. We  ask  Episcopalians,  why  they  were  there  ? 
The  answer  which  they  give  is,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  ordination,  but  for  "  concurrence/'  Paul,  the 
prelate,  say  they,  is  the  sole  ordainer.  We  see  Timo- 
thy kneeling  before  the  presbytery.  We  see  them 
solemnly  impose  their  hands  on  him.  We  ask,  Why 
is  this?  "Not  for  the  purpose  of  ordination,"  the 
Episcopalian  replies,  "  but  for  concurrence.  Paul  is 
the  ordainer."  But  we  ask,  further,  Had  they  no 
share  in  the  ordination  ?  "None  at  all."  Had  they 
no  participation  in  conferring  the  gift  designated  by 
prophecy?  "None  at  all."  Why,  then,  are  they 
present  ?  Why  do  they  lay  their  hands  on  him  ?  For 
"concurrence" — for  form,  for  nothing!  It  was 
empty  pageantry,  in  which  they  were  mistaken  when 
supposing  that  their  act  had  any  thing  to  do  in  con- 
ferring the  gift ;  for  their  presence  really  meant  no- 
thing, and  the  whole  transaction  could  as  well  have 
been  performed  without  as  with  them. 

(5.)  If  this  ordination  was  the  joint  act  of  the 
presbytery,  we  have  here  a  complete  Scriptural  ac- 
count of  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  It  becomes 
then,  a  very  material  question,  how  Episcopalians 
dispose  of  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Their  difficul- 
ties and  embarrassments  in  relation  to  it  will  still 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  217 

further  confirm  the  obvious  interpretation  which 
Presbyterians  suggest  and  hold.  These  difficulties  and 
embarrassments  are  thus  exhibited  by  Dr.  Onderdonk : 
He  first  doubts  whether  this  transaction  was  an 
ordination.  Tract,  pp.  18,  19.  To  this  I  answer, 
(1.)  That,  if  it  were  not,  then  there  is  no  account 
that  Timothy  was  ever  ordained-  (2.)  That  there  is 
no  specific  work  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the 
apostles  to  which  Timothy  was  designated,  unless 
it  was  ordination ;  (3.)  That  it  is  the  obvious  and  fair 
meaning  of  the  passage;  (4.)  That,  if  this  does  not 
refer  to  ordination,  it  would  be  easy  to  apply  the 
same  denial  to  all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the 
"  imposition  of  hands,"  and  to  show  that  there  was 
no  such  thing  as  ordination  to  the  ministry,  in  any 
case;  (5.)  That  it  accords  with  the  common  usage 
of  the  terms — "  imposition  of  hands" — £i:!.0£(jt<;  zwv 
%£tpaJv — in  the  New  Testament.  The  phrase  occurs 
but  four  times: — Acts  viii.  18;  1  Tim.  iv.  14; 
2  Tim.  i.  6;  Heb.  vi.  2.  In  all  these  places,  it 
evidently  denotes  conferring  some  gift,  office,  or 
favour,  described  by  the  act.  In  2  Tim.  i.  6,  it  de- 
notes, by  the  acknowledgment  of  all  Episcopalians, 
ordination  to  the  ministry.  Why  should  it  not 
here?  (6.)  If,  as  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  it  refers 
to  "  an  inspired  designation  of  one  already  in  the 
ministry  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,"  (Tract,  p. 
19,)  then,  (a)  I  ask,  why  we  have  no  other  mention 
of  this  transaction  ?     (6)  How  is  it  to  be  accounted 

19 


218  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

for,  that  Paul,  while  here  evidently  referring  Timo- 
thy to  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  minis- 
terial office  in  general,  should  not  refer  to  his  ordi- 
nation, but  to  a  designation  to  a  particular  field  of 
labour  ?  His  argument  to  Timothy,  on  such  a  sup- 
position, would  be  this:  "Your  office  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  is  one  that  is  exceedingly  important. 
A  bishop  must  be  blameless,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good 
behaviour,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not 
given  to  wine,  etc.  (Chap,  iii.)  In  order  to  impress 
this  more  deeply  on  you,  I  refer  you — not  to  the 
solemnity  of  your  ordination-vows — but,  I  solemnly 
remind  you  of  an  inspired  separation  of  one  already 
in  the  ministry  to  a  particular  field  of  duty."  I 
need  only  observe  here,  that  this  is  not  a  mode  of 
argument  which  looks  like  Prul.     But, 

Secondly.  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes  that  this 
was  not*  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  Tract,  pp.  19- 
21.  His  first  supposition  is,  that  the  word  "  pres- 
bytery" does  not  mean  the  persons,  but  the  office, 
p.  19.  This  has  been  already  noticed.  He  next 
-supposes  (pp.  20,  21,)  that  if  "  the  presbytery"  here 
means  not  the  office  given  to  Timothy,  but  a  body 
of  elders,  it  cannot  be  shown  "of  whom  this  or- 
daining presbytery  was  composed,"  p.  21.  And 
he  then  proceeds  to  state,  that  there  are  "seven 
modes"  in  which  this  "presbytery"  might  be  com- 
posed. It  might  be  made  up  of  "ruling  elders;"  or, 
it  might  be  composed  of  the  "grade  called  pres- 
byters;" or,  as  Peter  and  John  called  themselves 


OP   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  219 

"elders/'  might  be  made  up  of  "apostles;"  or, 
"  there  may  have  been  ruling  elders  and  presbyters; 
or,  presbyters  and  one  or  more  apostles ;  or,  ruling 
elders  and  one  or  more  of  the  apostles;  or, ( ruling 
elders,  and  presbyters,  and  apostles,"  p.  21.  Now, 
as  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  not  informed  us  which  of 
these  modes  he  prefers,  we  are  left  merely  to  con- 
jecture. We  may  remark  on  these  suppositions, 
(1.)  That  they  are  mere  suppositions.  There  is  not 
the  shadow  of  proof  to  support  them.  The  word 
"  presbytery" — -pzafib-lpiov — does  not  appear  to  be 
such  a  difficult  word  of  interpretation,  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  envelop  it  in  so  much  mist  in  order  to 
understand  it.  The  argument  here  is  such  as  a  man 
always  employs  when  he  is  pressed  by  difficulties 
which  he  cannot  meet,  and  when  he  throws  himself 
into  a  labyrinth,  in  the  hope,  that  amidst  its  nume- 
rous passages,  he  may  escape  detection,  and  evade 
pursuit.  (2.)  If  this  "  body  of  elders"  was  made 
up  of  "  ruling  elders,"  or,  u  of  the  grade  called 
presbyters,"  then  the  argument  of  Episcopacy  is 
overthrown.  Here  is  an  instance,  on  either  supposi- 
tion, of  Presbyterian  ordination,  which  is  fatal  to 
the  claims  that  bishops  only  ordain.  Or,  if  it  be 
supposed  that  this  was  not  an  ordination,  but  "  an 
inspired  separation  of  one  already  in  the  ministry  to 
a  particular  field  of  duty,"  it  is  an  act  equally  fatal 
to  the  claim  of  prelates  to  the  general  "  superintend- 
ence" of  the  church;  since  it  is  manifest  that  these 
11  elders"  took  upon  themselves  the  functions  of  this 


220  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

office,  and  designated  "  the  bishop  of  Ephesus"  to 
his  field  of  labour.  Such  a  transaction  would 
scarcely  meet  with  Episcopal  approbation  in  the 
nineteenth  century. 

But  in  regard  to  the  other  supposition,  that  a  part 
or  all  the  "  presbytery"  was  composed  of  apostles,  I 
remark,  (1.)  That  it  is  a  gratuitous  supposition. 
There  is  not  an  instance  in  which  the  term  "  pres- 
bytery/' or  "  body  of  elders,"  is  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  the  collective  body  of  the  apostles. 
(2.)  On  the  supposition  that  the  "  presbytery"  was 
composed  entirely  of  apostles,  then  how  does  it 
happen  that,  in  2  Tim.  i.  6,  Paul  appropriates  to 
himself  a  power  which  belonged  to  every  one  of 
them  in  as  full  right  as  to  him  ?  How  came  they 
to  surrender  that  power  into  the  hands  of  an  indi- 
vidual ?  Was  it  the  character  of  Paul  thus  to  as- 
sume authority  which  did  not  belong  to  him  ?  We 
have  seen,  already,  how,  on  the  supposition  of  the 
Episcopalian,  he  superseded  "  Bishop"  Timothy  in 
the  exercise  of  discipline,  in  Corinth,  and  in  his  own 
"diocese"  at  Ephesus;  we  have  now  an  instance  in 
which  he  claims  all  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act 
where  his  fellow-apostles  must  have  been  equally 
concerned. 

But  if  &  part  only  of  this  "  presbytery"  was  com- 
posed of  apostles,  and  the  remainder  presbyters 
either  ruling  elders,  or  "  the  second  grade,"  I  would 
make  the  following  inquiries  : — Was  Timothy  or- 
dained as  a  prelate  ?    So  the  Episcopalians  with  one 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  221 

voice  declare — prelate  of  Ephesus.  Then  it  follows, 
that  Timothy,  a  prelate,  was  set  apart  to  his  work 
by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  elders.  What 
was  then  his  prelatical  character  ?  Does  the  water 
in  the  cistern  rise  higher  than  the  fountain  ?  If  lay- 
men were  concerned,  Timothy  was  a  layman  still; 
if  presbyters,  Timothy  was  a  presbyter  still.  And 
thus  all  the  power  of  prelates,  from  him  of  Rome 
downward,  has  come  through  the  hands  of  humble 
presbyters — just  as  all  non-Episcopalians  believe, 
and  just  as  history  affirms.  Or  was  he  ordained  as 
a  presbyter?  Then  his  Episcopal  character,  so  far 
as  it  depends  on  his  ordination,  is  swept  away;  and 
thus  we  have  not  a  solitary  instance  of  the  conse- 
cration of  a  prelate  in  all  the  New  Testament. 

"Which  of  these  suppositions  Episcopalians  would 
be  disposed  to  receive  as  the  true  one,  is  not  known. 
All  of  them  cannot  be  true ;  and  whichever  is  pre- 
ferred is  equally  fatal  to  the  argument,  and  involves 
a  refutation  of  the  claims  of  prelacy. 

The  only  other  reply  with  which  Episcopalians 
meet  the  argument  for  Presbyterian  ordination  from 
this  passage,  is  the  supposition  that  the  virtue  of  the 
ordaining  act  was  derived  from  the  apostle  Paul. 
The  passage  on  which  they  rest  the  argument  for 
this  is  2  Timi.  6,  "That  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of 
God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  MY 
hands."  On  this  passage  I  observe,  (1.)  Paul  does 
not  deny  that  other  hands  were  also  imposed  oa 

19* 


222  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

Timothy,  nor  that  his  authority  was  derived  also 
from  others  in  conjunction  with  himself.  (2.)  That 
by  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  Pres- 
byterians, other  hands  were,  in  fact,  imposed  on  him. 
(3.)  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  Paul,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  relation  which  Timothy  sustained  to 
him  as  his  adopted  son,  (1  Tim.  i.  2 ;)  as  being  se- 
lected by  him  for  the  ministry,  (Acts  xvi.  3;)  and, 
as  being  his  companion  in  his  travels,  to  remind 
him,  near  the  close  of  his  own  life,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,) 
that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to  the  work  by 
himself — to  bring  his  own  agency  into  full  view — in 
order  to  stimulate  and  encourage  him.  That  Paul 
had  a  part  in  the  act  of  the  ordination  is  admitted ; 
that  others  also  had  apart — the  " presbytery" — has 
been  proved.  (4.)  The  expression  which  is  here 
used  is  just  such  as  the  aged  Presbyterian  minister 
would  now  use,  if  directing  a  farewell  letter  to  a  son 
in  the  ministry.  He  would  remind  him,  as  Paul 
does  in  this  epistle,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,)  that  he  was-about 
to  leave  the  ministry  and  the  world ;  and  if  he  wished 
to  impress  his  mind  in  a  peculiarly  tender  manner, 
he  would  remind  him  also,  that  he  took  part  in  his 
ordination ;  that  under  his  own  hands  he  had  been 
designated  to  the  work  of  the  ministry;  and  he 
would  endeavour  to  deepen  his  conviction  of  the  im- 
portance and  magnitude  of  the  work,  by  the  reflection 
that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to  it  by  &  father. 
Yet  who  would  infer  from  this,  that  the  aged  Pres- 
byterian would  wish  to  be  regarded  as  &  prelate? 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  223 

I  have  now  considered  all  the  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  the  obvious  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, and  it  may  now  be  submitted  to  any  candid 
mind  as  a  full  and  unqualified  statement  of  an  in- 
stance of  Presbyterian  ordination.  Whichever  of 
the  half-dozen  suppositions — assuming  a  hue,  cha- 
meleon-like, from  the  nature  of  the  argument  to  be 
refuted  —  that  Episcopalians  are  compelled  to  ap- 
ply to  the  passage  is  adopted,  we  have  seen  that 
they  involve  them  in  all  the  difficulties  of  an  un- 
natural interpretation,  and  conduct  us,  by  a  more 
circuitous  route,  only  to  the  plain  and  common-sense 
exposition  of  the  passage,  as  decisive  in  favour  of 
Presbyterian  ordination. 

It  has  thus  been  shown  that  there  was  one  Pres- 
byterian ordination,  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  and  this 
should  be  allowed  to  settle  the  question.  As  there 
is  no  other  undisputed  case  of  ordination  referred  to 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  we  may  presume  that 
on  an  occasion  of  the  kind  here  referred  to,  every 
thing  essential  to  a  valid  ordination  would  be  ob- 
served, it  demonstrates  that  presbyters  had  and  have 
the  right  to  ordain. 

2.  The  churches  were  intrusted  with  the  right  of 
admin iste ring  disc ipline. 

It  has  been  shown  at  length,  in  the  examination 
of  the  claims  of  the  "  bishop"  to  administer  disci- 
pline, and  to  exercise  supervision,  (ch.  iii.  §  3,)  that 
this  claim  is  not  sustained  by  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament.     In  further  confirmation  of  these 


224  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

views,  and  to  show  the  nature  of  the  organization 
of  the  Christian  church,  I  shall  now  show, that  the 
churches  were  intrusted  with  this  right,  and  were 
required  to  exercise  it  themselves.  In  support  of 
this,  I  adduce  the  following  passages  of  Scripture : — 

Acts  xx.  17,  18,  28 :  "  From  Miletus  Paul  sent 
to  Ephesus,  and  called  for  the  presbyters  (tow? 
n p e a ft 'uri pouq)  of  the  church;  and  when  they  were 
come  to  him,  he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  unto 
yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  (j.izt.<jz.6-ouq,)  to  feed 
(7toc/xat>£tv)  the  church  of  God."  It  would  be  easy 
to  show,  that  the  word  translated  feed  includes  the 
whole  duty  which  a  shepherd  exercises  over  his 
flock,  including  all  that  is  needful  in  the  super- 
vision, government,  and  defence  of  those  under  his 
care.  Proof  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  following 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  where  the  word  oc- 
curs in  the  sense  of  ruling  or  governing,  including, 
of  course,  the  exercise  of  discipline;  for  how  can 
there  be  government,  unless  there  is  authority  for 
punishing  offenders?  Matt.  ii.  6;  John  xxi.  16; 
1  Pet.  v.  2;  Rev.  ii.  27.  ("And  he  shall  rule  them 
(xoiiiavlt  aorobq)  with  a  rod  of  iron  j"  an  expression 
which  will  be  allowed  to  imply  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline ;  Rev.  xii.  5  j  xix.  15 ;  comp.  Ps.  ii.  9  j  xxiii.  1 ; 
xxvii.  12;  xlvii.  13.)  The  Iliad  of  Homer  may  be 
consulted,  passim,  for  this  use  of  the  word ;  see  par- 
ticularly I.  263;  11.85. 

1  Pet.  v.  2,  3 :  "  The  presbyters  (npEGpuzlpoui) 


OF   THE  APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  225 

who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  pres- 
byter. Feed  (notftdvare)  the  flock  of  God  which 
is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  {iTtHrxoTzduvzeq, 
discharging  the  duty  of  bishops)  thereof,  not  by 
constraint,  but  willingly/ '  Here  the  very  work 
which  is  claimed  for  prelates  is  enjoined  on  presby- 
ters, and  the  very  name  which  Episcopal  bishops 
assume  is  given  to  presbyters,  and  Peter  ranks  him- 
self as  on  a  level  with  them  in  the  office  of  exer- 
cising discipline,  or  in  the  government  of  the  church. 
It  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  the  presbyters  at  Ephe- 
sus,  and  the  presbyters  whom  Peter  addressed,  were 
intrusted  with  the  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent, 
for  they  were  required  to  engage  in  all  the  work  re- 
quisite in  instructing,  directing,  and  governing  the 
flock.  And  it  is  as  obvious  that  they  were  intrusted 
with  a  power  and  an  authority  in  this  business  with 
which  presbyters  are  not  intrusted  by  the  canons  of 
the  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  respectfully  asked, 
whether  the  bishop  of  Pennsylvania  or  New  Jersey 
would  now  take  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  for  a  text,  and  ad- 
dress the  "  priests,"  or  "  second  order  of  clergy/' 
in  these  words,  without  considerable  qualification : — 
"The  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I  exhort, 
who  am  also  a  PRESBYTER.  Feed  {Tzoi;xdvars)  the 
flock  of  God,  discharging  the  duty  of  bishops  over 
it,  (^7T£<rzo-o6ivr£?,)  not  by  constraint,  neither  as  being 
LORDS  over  God's  heritage." 

Heb.  xiii.  7 :  "  Remember  them  which  have  the 
rule  over  you :   rd>v  yyoutilvuiv  u/jlwv,  YOUR  RULERS." 


226  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

Verse  17  :  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you." 
UelOeffOs  ToZg  yyoufiiuotq  6/j.wv.  That  bishops  are  here 
referred  to,  no  one  will  pretend.  Yet  the  office  of 
ruling  certainly  implies  that  kind  of  government 
which  is  concerned  in  the  administration  of  discipline. 

1  Thess.  v.  12 :  "  We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to 
know  them  which  labour  among  you,  and  are  over 
you  in  the  Lord."  xai  7tpo'iffTa/xivou<;  u/iibv  £v  xupiw. 
1  Tim.  v.  17 :  "  Let  the  presbyters  that  rule  well 
(izpoeaTWTsq)  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour." 
There  can  be  no  question  that  these  passages  are  ap- 
plied to  presbyters.  We  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  terms  which  properly  denote  government 
and  discipline,  and  on  which  alone  any  claim  for  the 
exercise  of  authority  can  be  founded — the  terms  ex- 
pressive of  governing,  of  feeding,  of  ruling,  of  taking 
the  oversight — are  all  applied  to  presbyters;  that 
the  churches  are  required  to  submit  to  them  in  the 
exercise  of  that  office ;  and  that  the  very  term  de- 
noting Episcopal  jurisdiction  is  applied  to  them  also. 
We  ask  for  a  solitary  passage  which  directs  apostles 
or  prelates  to  administer  discipline;  and  the  case  of 
discipline,  therefore,  may  be  left  to  the  common 
sense  of  those  who  read  the  New  Testament,  and  who 
believe  that  presbyters  had  any  duties  to  perform. 

But  further  :  The  churches  were  authorized  to  ad- 
minister discipline  in  connection  with  the  presiding 
officers  j  and  such  an  account  is  given  of  this  matter 
as  to  lead  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the 
churches  were  always  consulted,  and  that  discipline 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  227 

was  never  administered  by  an  independent  foreign 
minister,  such  as  an  Episcopal  bishop  is.  The  case 
of  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  one  on  which  Episco- 
palians  most  rely,  has  already  been  considered,  and 
it  has  been  proved  that  even  there  the  apostle  Paul 
did  not  assume  the  authority  of  excluding  a  member* 
without  the  concurrence  and  action  of  the  church. 
Of  a  similar  character  is  the  following  direction  given 
to  the  church  at  Thessalonica  :  "And  if  any  man  obey 
not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have 
no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed. " 
2  Thess.  iii.  14.  In  this  case  the  church  was  directed 
to  administer  discipline  itself,  if  there  was  a  member 
in  it  who  was  disobedient  to  the  inspired  command 
of  the  apostle.  The  direction  is  not,  to  observe  him, 
and  to  report  him  to  the  apostle  or  "  bishop,"  but  to 
proceed  themselves  to  the  act  of  discipline,  and  so  to 
exclude  him  as  to  have  no  company  with  him.  And 
of  the  same  nature  is  the  direction  of  the  Saviour 
himself,  in  the  solemn  command  which  lays  the 
foundation  for  the  only  authority  for  administering 
discipline  at  all  in  the  churches  :  "  Moreover,  if  thy 
brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him 
his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone ;  if  he  shall 
hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he 
will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two 
more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses 
every  word  may  be  established.  x\nd  if  he  shall 
neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church ;  but  if 
he  neglect  to  hear  the  church7  let  him  be  unto  thee 


228  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican.' '  Matt,  xviii. 
15-17.  In  regard  to  this  passage,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, (1.)  That  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  Sa- 
viour designed  to  embody  the  principles  of  discipline 
here  so  that  they  might  be  applied  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  and  so  that  this,  in  all  circumstances,  would 
be  an  adequate  direction.  There  is  not  anywhere  in 
the  New  Testament  a  more  formal  direction  given  on 
the  subject  of  discipline,  and  it  can  hardly  be  pre- 
sumed that,  on  such  an  occasion,  the  Saviour  would 
have  omitted  what  he  designed  should  be  an  essen- 
tial and  a  permanent  principle.  (2.)  The  apostles 
had  been  chosen  and  ordained  before  that  direction 
was  given,  (Matt,  x.,)  and  if  he  had  designed  that 
they  alone  should  have  the  power  of  administering 
discipline,  it  is  unaccountable  that  there  is  no  inti- 
mation whatever  that  so  important  a  function  was 
conferred  on  them.  The  direction,  "  Tell  it  to  the 
church,"  (efrre  ry  ixxXrjffia,')  is  not  one  which  would 
be  understood  as  referring  to  the  apostles,  as  being, 
in  fact,  "  the  church."  It  is  a  direction  which  would 
naturally  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  assembly 
of  the  faithful.  (3.)  Equally  unaccountable  is  it 
that  no  reference  is  made  to  the  "successors"  of  the 
apostles,  as  having  the  power  to  administer  disci- 
pline, and  that  this  should  be  left  to  be  a  standing 
subject  of  mistake  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  Even 
now,  to  the  apprehension  of  the  great  body  of  plain 
Christians,  this  direction  cannot  possibly  be  made  to 
mean  that  when  an  offence  is  committed,  the  brother 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  229 

who  is  injured  must  tell  it  to  "  the  bishop"  as  the 
"successor  of  the  apostles,"  and  that  if  the  offender 
will  not  hear  him,  he  is  to  be  regarded  asa  "  heathen 
man  and  a  publican."  (4.)  This  direction  of  the 
Saviour  is  not  complied  with  in  Episcopal  churches, 
nor  under  their  arrangement  is  it  possible  that  it 
should  be.  The  "  bishop,"  intrusted  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  discipline,  is  not  "  the  church,"  nor 
does  "  the  church"  ever  have  an  opportunity  of  de- 
ciding on  the  case  as  the  Saviour  contemplated. 
The  whole  authority  to  administer  discipline  is 
claimed  by  the  "bishop"  by  divine  right,  as  one  of 
the  prerogatives  of  his  office;  and  uthe  church"  is  ex- 
cluded from  all  participation  in  saying,  either  collec- 
tively or  by  representatives,  whether  the  offender 
shall  or  shall  not  be  regarded  "as  a  heathen  man  and 
a  publican."  The  church  has  no  option  in  the  case. 
The  authority  thus  claimed  by  the  bishop  is  a  part 
of  a  system  of  usurpations  on  the  prerogatives  con- 
ferred by  the  Saviour  on  others.  "We  have  seen  that 
he  has  usurped  the  prerogative  of  being  regarded  as 
the  peculiar  "  successor"  of  the  apostles  j  that  he  has 
usurped  the  exclusive  power  of  ordaining — thus  de- 
priving presbyters  of  a  right  conferred  on  them  in 
the  New  Testament ;  that  he  has  usurped  the  right 
of  "confirmation" — if  it  should  exist  at  all  in  the 
church — thus  practically  declaring  that  the  pastor  is 
disqualified  from  admitting  his  own  members  to  the 
communion,  and  claiming  that  there  is  some  heavenly 

20 


230  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

influence  imparted  through  his  hands  which  can  be 
conferred  by  no  other  minister  of  religion ;  and  we 
now  see  that  this  system  of  usurpation  is  completed 
by  depriving  the  church  and  the  eldership  wholly 
of  the  right  of  administering  discipline  over  an 
offending  member,  thus  claiming  that  the  whole  of 
this  tremendous  power  should  be  lodged  in  his  hands. 
The  standing,  the  influence,  the  character  of  each 
one  of  the  thousands  of  a  "  diocese"  is  thus  lodged 
ultimately  in  the  hands  of  one  man — a  man  who  is 
a  stranger ;  who  is  bound  to  them  by  none  of  the 
tender  ties  of  the  pastoral  relation  ;  and  who  has  the 
sole  power  to  decide  the  case  without  appeal.  Now, 
we  may  ask,  where  any  thing  like  this  is  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament?  Did  the  Saviour  contemplate 
that  the  voice  of  the  church  should  never  be  heard 
in  the  discipline  of  its  own  members  ?  On  what  basis 
is  it  that  this  power  is  claimed,  thus  depriving  the 
churches  of  rights  and  prerogatives  indubitably  con- 
ferred on  them  by  their  Great  Head  ?  It  is  a  part 
of  a  great  system  of  usurpation  which  began  when 
ambition  began  in  the  church  j  which  has  been  fos- 
tered to  give  authority  to  the-  higher  "  orders"  of 
the  priesthood  ;  and  which  finds  its  appropriate  place 
only  in  the  corruptions  of  the  papacy. 

Sect.  3. —  The  'primitive  churches  were  organized 
without  aprela  te,  and  loitho  u  t  "three  orders  of  clergy. ' ' 

In  support  of  this,  I  shall  adduce  the  case  of  one 
church  at  least  that  was  not  organized  on  the  prin- 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  231 

ciples  of  Episcopalians,  with  three  orders  of  clergy. 
I  refer  to  the  church  at  Philippi :  "Paul  and  Ti- 
mothy, servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons," — o'jv  l-w/.o-ois  /.at  dtazovocq.  In  re- 
gard to  this  church,  I  make  the  following  observa- 
tions : — (1.)  It  was  organized  by  the  apostle  Paul 
himself,  in  connection  with  Silas,  and  was,  there- 
fore, on  the  "  truly  primitive  and  apostolic"  plan. 
Acts  xvi.  (2.)  It  was  in  the  centre  of  a  large  ter- 
ritory, the  capital  of  Macedonia,  and  not  likely  to  be 
placed  in  subjection  to  a  diocesan  of  another  region. 
(3.)  It  was  surrounded  by  other  churches ;  as  we 
have  express  mention  of  the  church  at  Thessalonica, 
and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  at  Berea.  Acts  xvii. 
(4.)  There  is  mention  made  of  but  two  orders  of 
men.  What  the  deacons  were,  we  know  from  the 
appointment  in  Acts  v.  1-6.  They  were  desig- 
nated, not  to  preach,  but  to  take  care  of  the  poor 
members  of  the  church,  and  to  distribute  the  alms 
of  the  saints.  As  we  have  there,  in  the  original 
appointment  of  the  office,  the  express  and  extended 
mention  of  its  functions,  we  are  to  infer  that  the 
design  was  the  same  at  Philippi.  The  other  class, 
therefore — the  "  bishops" — constitute  the  preaching 
order,  or  the  clergy — those  to  whom  were  committed 
the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Now, 
either  these  bishops  were  prelates,  or  they  were  che 
pastors,  the  presbyters  of  the  church      If  Episco 


232  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

palians  choose  to  say,  that  they  were  prelates,  then 
it  follows,  (a)  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  such  pre- 
lates in  the  same  diocese,  the  same  city,  and  the  same 
church  j  which  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  idea 
of  Episcopacy.  It  follows,  also,  (&)  that  there  was 
entirely  wanting,  in  this  church,  the  "  second  order" 
of  clergy;  that  an  Episcopal  church  was  organized, 
defective  in  one  of  the  essential  grades,  with  an  ap- 
pointment of  a  body  of  prelates  without  presbyters  j 
that  is,  an  order  of  "  superior"  men,  designated  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  "priests"  who  had  no  ex- 
istence. If  it  be  said  that  the  "  presbyters,"  or 
"  second  order,"  might  have  been  there  though  Paul 
did  not  expressly  name  them,  then  we  are  presented 
with  the  remarkable  fact,  that  he  specifies  the  dea- 
cons, an  inferior  order,  and  expresses  to  them  his 
Christian  salutations;  that  he  salutes  also  the 
"saints" — or  the  private  members  of  the  church — 
and  yet  entirely  disregards  those  who  had  the 
special  pastoral  charge  of  the  church.  Paul  thus 
becomes  a  model  of  incivility.  In  the  epistles  to 
Timothy,  he  gives  him  directions  about  every  thing 
else,  but  no  counsel  about  his  brother  "  prelates;"  in 
the  epistles  to  the  churches,  he  salutes  their  prelates 
and  their  deacons,  but  becomes  utterly  regardless  of 
the  "second  order  of  clergy,"  the  immediate  pastors 
of  the  churches. 

But  if  our  Episcopal  brethren  prefer  to  say  that 
the  "bishops"  here  mean  not  prelates,  but  presby- 
ters, we,  so  far,  shall  agree  with  them ;  and  then  it 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  233 

follows,  (a)  That  here  is  an  undeniable  instance  of 
a  church,  or  rather  of  a  group  of  churches,  large 
enough  to  satisfy  the  reasonable  desire  of  any  dio- 
cesan bishop  for  extended  jurisdiction,  organized 
without  prelate  or  bishop.  None  is  mentioned;  and 
there  are  but  two  orders  of  men,  to  whom  the  care 
of  the  "  saints  at  Philippi"  is  intrusted,  (b)  If  there 
was  a  prelate  there,  then  we  ask,  why  Paul  did  not 
refer  to  him  with  affectionate  salutations  ?  Why  does 
he  refer  to  "the  second  and  third  orders  of  clergy," 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  the  man  who  was 
"  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  rank  and  power"  ? 
Was  Paul  jealous  of  the  prelate?  Or  have  we  here 
another  instance  of  indecorum  and  incivility  ?  (c)  If 
they  had  had  a  prelate,  and  the  see  was  then  vacant, 
why  is  there  no  reference  to  this  fact  ?  Why  no  con- 
dolence at  their  loss  ?  Why  no  prayer  that  God 
would  send  them  a  man  to  enter  into  the  vacant 
diocese?  (<7)  Episcopalians  have  sometimes  felt  the 
pressure  of  these  difficulties  to  be  so  great,  that  they 
have  supposed  the  bishop  was  absent  when  this 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  and 
that  this  was  the  reason  why  he  was  not  remem- 
bered in  the  salutation.  Of  this  solution,  I  observe 
only,  that  it  is  mere  assumption.  But,  even  granting 
this  assumption,  it  is  an  inquiry  of  not  very  easy 
solution,  why  Paul  did  not  make  some  reference  to 
this  fact,  and  ask  their  prayers  for  the  absent  pre- 
late.    One  can  scarcely  help  being  forcibly  remind- 

20* 


234  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

ed,  by  the  ineffectual  efforts  of  Episcopalians  to  find 
a  prelate  at  Philippi,  of  a  remarkable  transaction 
mentioned  in  1  Kings  xviii.  27,  28:  "Either  he 
is  talking ;  or  he  is  pursuing ;  or  he  is  in  a  jour- 
ney ;  or  peradventure  he  sleepeth,  and  must  be 
awaked/'  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark,  that 
if  a  single  church  is  proved  to  have  been  organized 
without  the  "  three  orders  of  clergy,"  the  parity  of 
the  ministry  is  made  out  by  apostolic  appointment, 
and  the  Episcopal  argument  is  at  an  end. 

I  may  add,  that  this  view  of  the  organization  of 
the  church  in  Philippi  is  confirmed  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  organization  of  the  church  in  its  imme- 
diate neighbourhood,  in  Thessalonica.  In  the  two 
epistles  which  Paul  directed  to  that  church,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  prelatical  bishop; 
there  is  no  mention  of  " three  orders  of  clergy;" 
there  is  no  hint  that  the  church  was  organized  on 
that  plan.  But  one  order  of  ministers  is  mentioned, 
evidently  as  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  respect, 
and  as  on  an  entire  equality.  They  were  clearly  of 
the  same  rank,  and  engaged  in  discharging  the 
functions  of  the  same  office.  "  And  we  beseech  you, 
brethren,  to  know  them  which  labour  among  you, 
and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you ; 
and  to  esteem  them  very  highly  in  love,  for  their 
work's  sake."  1  Thess.'  v.  12,  13.  Will  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy  be  kind  enough  to  inform  us 
why  there  is  no  mention  of  the  prelate,  whether 
present  or  absent? 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  235 

We  are  here  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  of 
the  undeniable  fact,  that  there  is  no  distinction  of 
grade  or  rank  in  the  names  which  are  given  to  the 
ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  admitted  by  Episcopalians  themselves,  that  the 
names  bishop,  presbyter,  etc.,  in  the  Bible,  do  not 
denote  those  ranks  of  church-officers  to  which  they 
are  now  applied,  but  are  given  indiscriminately  to 
all.  On  this  point,  we  have  the  authority  of  Dr. 
Onderdonk.  "  The  name  ' bishop/  "  says  he,  "which 
now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is 
not  appropriated  to  this  office  in  Scripture.  That 
name  is  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  presbyters; 

and  ALL.  THAT  WE  READ  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

concerning  'bishops/  (including,  of  course,  the 
words  '  overseers'  and  '  oversight/  which  have  the 
same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertain- 
ing to  this  middle  grade."  Tract,  p.  12. 
"  Another  irregularity  of  the  same  kind  occurs  in 
regard  to  the  word  'elder.'  It  is  sometimes  used 
for  a  minister,  or  clergyman  of  any  grade,  higher, 
middle,  or  lower;  but  it  more  strictly  signifies  a 
presbyter."     Tract,  p.  14. 

In  accordance  with  this  fact,  which  is  as  re- 
markable as  it  is  true,  we  have  seen  that  Peter 
applies  to  himself  the  name  presbyter,  and  put  him- 
self on  a  level  with  other  presbyters.  "  The  pres- 
byters which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,"  (not  I  com- 
mand, or  enjoin,  as  a  prelate  would  do,)  "who  am 
also  a  presbyter."  1  Pet.  v.  1.     And  in   the  very 


236  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

next  verse  he  exhorts  them  (the  elders,  or  presby- 
ters) to  '.'  feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight," (i-HTzo-ouvzeg,  exercising  the  office  of  bishop,) 
"  not  by  constraint." 

Now  let  these  conceded  facts  be  borne  in  mind. 
The  term  presbyter  is  applied  by  the  apostle  Peter 
to  himself,  and  "  all  that  we  read  of  in  the  New 
Testament  concerning  l  bishops,'  is  applied  to  the 
middle  grade."  The  apostles  address  each  other, 
and  their  brethren,  by  no  words  or  names  that  indi- 
cate superior  rank,  grade,  or  authority.  This  fact 
can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that 
they  regarded  themselves,  as  ministers,  as  on  a  level. 
If  they  meant  to  teach  that  one  class  was  superior 
in  rank  and  power  to  others,  they  would  not  have 
used  terms  always  confounding  such  distinctions, 
and  always  proceeding  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  on  an  equality.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that 
they  could  not  employ  terms  which  would  have 
marked  the  various  grades.  For  if  the  term  "  bi- 
shop" can  now  do  it,  it  could  have  done  it  then;  if 
the  term  presbyter  can  now  be  used  to  denote  "  the 
middle  grade,"  it  could  then  have  been  so  used.  It 
is  clear,  also,  that  if  such  had  been  their  intention, 
they  would  have  thus  employed  those  terms.  That 
the  sacred  writers  were  capable  of  using  language 
definitely,  Episcopalians  will  not  doubt.  Why,  then, 
if  they  were  capable,  did  they  choose  not  to  do  it  ? 
Are  prelates  now  ever  as  vague  and  indefinite  in 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  237 

their  use  of  the  terms  "bishop"  and  "presbyters," 
as  were  the  apostles? 

It  is  remarkable,  also,  that  the  mode  of  using  these 
terms  in  the  New  Testament  is  precisely  in  accord- 
ance with  the  usage  in  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional churches.  They  speak  indiscriminately  of 
their  ministers,  just  as  the  sacred  writers  did,  as 
"  bishops,"  as  "  pastors,"  as  "presbyters"  or  "  elders," 
as  "  teachers,"  as  "  evangelists."  They  regard  their 
ministers  as  on  an  equality.  Did  not  the  sacred 
writers  do  the  same  ? 

It  is  as  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these 
terms  in  the  Episcopal  churches  is  NOT  that  which 
occurs  in  the  Bible.  And  it  is  as  certain,  that,  were 
they  thus  to  use  those  terms,  it  would  at  once  con- 
found their  orders  and  ranks,  and  reduce  their  mi- 
nisters to  equality.  Do  we  ever  see  any  approxima- 
tion in  their  addresses,  and  in  their  canons,  in  this 
respect,  to  the  language  and  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?  Do  we  ever  hear  those  of  the  "second  order" 
— or  priests — mentioned  as  bishops  ?  Do  we  ever 
hear  the  term  presbyter  or  elder  applied  to  their 
bishops  ?  Would  it  not  confound  all  the  arrange- 
ments in  the  Episcopal  Church,  if  the  terms  were 
thus  indiscriminately  applied?  And  yet,  it  is  to  be 
presumed  that  the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament 
to  designate  any  office  may  be  used  still.  It  cannot 
be  improper  to  call  things  by  their  true  names,  and 
to  apply  to  all  ranks  and  orders  of  men  the  terms 
which  are  applied  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  inspira- 


238  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

tion.  And  as  the  indiscriminate  use  of  these  terms 
is  carefully  avoided  by  the  customs  and  canons  of 
the  Episcopal  Church;  as  there  seems  to  have  been 
a  presentiment  in  the  formation  of  those  canons  that 
such  indiscriminate  use  would  reduce  the  fabric  to 
simple  "parity"  of  the  clergy;  and  as  these  terms 
cannot  be  so  used  without  reducing  these  "ranks  and 
orders"  to  a  scriptural  equality,  we  come  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  apostles  meant  to  teach  that  the 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament  are  equal  in  mi- 
nisterial rights  and  powers. 

Sect.  4. —  Conclusion. 

I  have  now  gone  through  this  entire  subject.  I 
have  examined,  I  trust,  in  a  candid  manner — I  am 
sure  with  the  kindest  feelings  toward  my  Episcopal 
brethren — every  argument  which  they  have  to  ad- 
duce from  the  Bible  in  favour  of  the  claims  of  their 
bishops.  Those  arguments  have  been  disposed  of, 
step  by  step.  These  are  all  the  arguments  which 
Episcopacy  has  to  urge  from  the  Bible.  There  is 
nothing  that  remains.  The  subject  is  exhausted. 
Episcopacy  rests  here;  and  it  is  incumbent  on  Epis- 
copacy to  show,  not  to  affirm,  that  our  interpretation 
of  those  passages  is  not  sustained  by  sound  princi- 
ples of  exegesis. 

The  burden  of  proof  still  lies  on  them.  They 
assumed  it,  and  on  them  it  rests.  They  affirm  that 
enormous  powers  are  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the  pre- 
late— every  thing  pertaining  to  ordination,  to  confir- 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  239 

mation,  to  discipline,  to  the  superintendence  of  the 
Christian  church.  They  claim  powers  for  the  "  bi- 
shop" which  would  degrade  every  presbyter  in  the 
world  j  which  would  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  a 
subordinate  officer,  and  which  would  strip  him  of  the 
right  of  transmitting;  his  own  office,  and  of  adminis- 
tering  discipline  among  his  own  flock.  They  arro- 
gate powers  which  go  to  deprive  all  other  presbyters, 
except  Episcopal  presbyters,  of  any  right  to  officiate 
in  the  church  of  God;  rendering  their  ordination  in- 
valid, their  administrations  void,  and  their  exercise  of 
the  functions  of  their  office  a  daring  and  impious  in- 
vasion of  the  rights  of  the  priesthood,  and  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  Christ.  The  foundation  for  these  sweep- 
ing, and  certainly  not  very  modest,  claims,  I  have 
examined  with  all  freedom.  The  argument  for  pre- 
lacy may  be  summed  up  in  a  word.  It  consists  in  the 
text — the  solitary  text — "  the  apostles  and  elders," 
"  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,"  joined  to 
a  circuitous  train  of  reasoning,  remote  from  common 
apprehension,  and  too  abstruse  for  the  guidance  of 
the  mass  of  men.  Step  by  step,  I  have  followed  the 
defenders  of  this  system  in  their  circuits;  argument 
after  argument  I  have  endeavoured  patiently  to 
displace;  and  at  the  conclusion,  I  may  ask  any  person 
of  plain  common  sense  to  place  his  finger  on  that 
portion  of  the  book  of  God  which  is  favourable  to 
prelacy. 

This  argument  for  the  authority  of  prelates  hav- 
ing been   met  and  disproved,  I  have  produced  an 


240  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

instance  of  express  Presbyterian  ordination,  in  the 
case  of  Timothy.  Two  churches  we  have  fouad 
which  were  organized  without  prelates.  We  are 
thus,  by  another  train  of  argument,  conducted  to 
the  same  result — that  prelates  are  unknown  in  the 
New  Testament.  And,  to  make  the  argument  per- 
fectly conclusive,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  same 
titles  are  applied  indiscriminately  to  all. 

This  argument  may  be  summed  up  in  still  fewer 
words.  The  Episcopal  claims  are  not  made  out; 
and,  of  course,  the  clergy  of  the  New  Testament 
are  equal.  The  Episcopalian  has  failed  to  show 
that  there  were  different  grades ;  and  it  follows  that 
there  must  be  parity. 

In  conducting  this  argument,  I  have  endeavoured 
to  show  that  the  claims  of  Episcopalians  are  un- 
founded, and  at  the  same  time  that  there  were  ar- 
rangements in  regard  to  the  constitution,  govern- 
ment, and  officers  of  the  church,  which  were  de- 
signed to  be  permanent.  The  general  principles  of 
church  organization  were  laid  down  as  binding.  The 
details  were  not  prescribed  ;  they  were  left,  like  the 
subject  of  civil  government,  to  be  modified  by  cir- 
cumstances from  age  to  age.  The  gospel  was  to  be 
preached  in  all  lands  and  in  all  times;  the  church 
was  to  be  located  under  different  forms  of  civil  go- 
vernment, and  among  people  of  different  habits  and 
customs;  the  organization  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity was  to  be  such  as  would  be  consistent  and  pro- 
per under  a  civil  government  of  the  monarchical, 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  241 

the  aristocratic,  or  the  republican  form.  Those  re- 
gulations in  detail  which  would  be  fitted  to  the  cus- 
toms  of  the  Oriental  world,  might  be  little  adapted 
to  habits  which  might  exist  toward  the  setting  sun ; 
and  rites,  and  customs,  and  modes  of  worship  and 
of  discipline  which  would  have  been  appropriate  to 
the  times  when  the  apostles  lived,  might  be  ill- 
adapted  to  some  future  age  of  the  world.  The  same 
great  principles  of  truth  and  worship  might  receive 
new  influence  and  power  under  some  modified  form 
in  a  future  age;  and  the  external  arrangements  of 
the  church  might  be  left,  as  the  subject  of  human 
government  is,  somewhat  to  the  developments  of 
time  and  experience.  Truth  is  always  the  same. 
The  doctrines  of  religion  were  not,  indeed,  suscep- 
tible of  being  modified — for  truth  is  always  the 
same.  But  the  details  of  worship,  and  order,  and 
discipline  in  the  church  did  not  require  or  admit  of 
the  same  explicitness  which  were  requisite  in  regard 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  atonement. 

The  following  remarks  of  Archbishop  Whately 
on  this  subject  seem  to  me  to  be  so  weighty  and 
important,  as  to  demand  the  profound  attention  of 
all  who  would  understand  the  constitution  of  the 
Christian  church  : — 

"Among  the  important  facts  which  we  can  col- 
lect and  fully  ascertain  from  the  sacred  historians, 
scanty  and  irregular  and  imperfect  as  are  their  re- 
cords of  particulars,  one  of  the  most  important  is 

21 


242  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

that  very  scantiness  and  incompleteness  in  the  de- 
tail— that  absence  of  any  full  and  systematic  de- 
scription of  the  formation  and  regulation  of  Chris- 
tian communities  that  has  been  just  noticed.  For 
we  may  plainly  infer,  from  this  very  circumstance, 
the  design  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  those  details, 
concerning  which  no  precise  directions,  accompanied 
with  strict  injunctions,  are  to  be  found  in  Scripture, 
were  meant  to  be  left  to  the  regulation  of  each 
church,  in  each  age  and  country.  On  any  point  in 
which  it  was  designed  that  all  Christians  should  be, 
everywhere  and  at  all  times,  bound  as  strictly  as 
the  Jews  were  to  the  Levitical  law,  we  may  fairly 
conclude  they  would  have  received  directions  no 
less  precise,  and  descriptions  no  less  minute,  than 
had  been  afforded  to  the  Jews. 

"  It  has  often  occurred  to  my  mind  that  the  gene- 
rality of  even  studious  readers  are  apt,  for  want  of 
sufficient  reflection,  to  fail  of  drawing  such  im- 
portant inferences  as  they  often  might,  from  the 
omissions  occurring  in  any  work  they  are  perusing; 
from  its  not  containing  su*h  and  such  things  rela- 
tive to  the  subject  treated  of.  There  are  many 
cases  in  which  the  non-insertion  of  some  particulars 
which,  under  other  circumstances,  we  might  have 
calculated  on  meeting  with  in  a  certain  book,  will 
be  hardly  less  instructive  than  the  things  we  do 
meet  with. 

"And   this   is   much  more   especially  the   case 


OF    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  243 

when  we  are  studying  works  which  we  believe  to 
have  been  composed  under  divine  guidance.  For, 
in  the  case  of  mere  human  compositions,  one  may 
conceive  an  author  to  have  left  out  some  important 
circumstances,  either  through  error  of  judgment  or 
inadvertency,  or  from  having  written  merely  for  the 
use  of  a  particular  class  of  readers  in  his  own  time 
and  country,  without  any  thought  of  what  might  be 
necessary  information  for  persons  at  a  distance  and 
in  after-ages  j  but  we  cannot,  of  course,  attribute  to 
any  such  causes  omissions  in  the  inspired  writers. 
On  no  supposition  whatever  can  we  account  for  the 
omission,  by  all  of  them,  of  many  points  which 
they  do  omit,  and  of  their  scanty  and  slight  men- 
tion of  others,  except  by  considering  them  as  with- 
held by  the  express  design  and  will  (whether  com- 
municated to  each  of  them  or  not)  of  their  heavenly 
Master,  restraining  them  from  committing  to  writing 
many  things  which  naturally,  some  or  other  of  them 
at  least,  would  not  have  failed  so  to  record. 

"No  such  thing  is  to  be  found  in  our  Scriptures 
as  a  catechism,  or  regular  Elementary  Introduction 
to  the  Christian  religion ;  nor  do  they  furnish  us 
with  any  thing  of  the  nature  of  a  systematic  creed, 
set  of  articles,  Confession  of  Faith,  or  by  whatever 
other  name  one  may  designate  a  regular,  complete 
compendium  of  Christian  doctrines;  nor,  again,  do 
they  supply  us  with  a  liturgy  for  ordinary  public 
worship,  or  with  forms  for  administering  the  sacra- 


244  ORGANIZATION    AND    GOVERNMENT 

inents,  or  for  conferring  holy  orders;  nor  do  they 
even  give  any  precise  directions  as  to  these  and 
other  ecclesiastical  matters — any  thing  that  at  all 
corresponds  to  the  rubric,  or  set  of  canons."* 

I  here  close  this  inquiry  into  the  organization  and 
government  of  the  apostolic  church.  As  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Bible  which  Episcopacy  can  add,  the 
whole  subject  here  should  be  allowed  to  rest.  The 
entire  scriptural  argument  is  exhausted ;  and  here 
the  inquiry  ends.  In  conclusion,  I  may  remark, 
that  I  speak,  I  believe,  the  language  of  the  great 
body  of  those  who  are  not  Episcopalians — and  the 
language  expresses  the  convictions  of  my  intellect 
and  the  feelings  of  my  heart — when  I  say,  that  we 
have  no  unkind  emotions  toward  those  who  believe 
that  Episcopacy  is  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  and 
is  the  form  of  church  government  best  adapted  to 
promote  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer  of  the  world. 
We  do  not  forget  the  former  services  which  the 
Episcopal  church  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth  and 
of  the  world's  redemption.  We  remember  the  bright 
and  ever-living  lights  which  her  clergy  and  her 
illustrious  laymen  have  in  other  times  enkindled  in 
the  darkness  of  this  world's  history,  and  which  con- 
tinue to  pour  their  pure  and  steady  lustre  on  the 
literature,  the  laws,  and  the  customs  of  Christian 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated,  Essay  II.  g  8. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  245 

nations;  and  we  trust  the  day  will  never  come  when 
the  bosoms  of  Christians  in  any  denomination  will 
cease  to  beat  with  emotions  of  lofty  thanksgiving  to 
the  God  of  grace  that  he  raised  up  such  gifted  and 
holy  men,  to  meet  the  corruptions  of  the  papacy, 
and  to  breast  the  wickedness  of  the  world. 

We  have  no  unkind  emotions  toward  any  branch 
of  the  true  church  of  God.  We  strive  to  cherish 
feelings  of  affectionate  regard  for  them  all,  and  to 
render  praise  to  the  common  Father  of  Christians, 
for  any  efforts  which  are  made  to  advance  the  in- 
telligence, the  purity,  and  the  salvation  of  mankind. 
In  our  views  of  the  nature  of  mind  and  of  freedom, 
we  can  have  no  uncharitable  emotions  toward  any 
denomination  of  true  Christians.  "  There  are  di- 
versities of  organizations,  but  the  same  Spirit."  We 
have  no  expectation  that  all  men,  in  this  world,  will 
think  alike ;  and  we  regard  it  as  a  wise  arrangement 
that  the  church  of  God  is  thus  organized  into  dif- 
ferent sections  and  departments,  under  the  banner 
of  the  common  Captain  of  their  salvation.  It  pro- 
motes inquiry;  it  prevents  complacency  in  mere 
forms  and  ceremonies;  it  produces  healthy  and 
vigorous  emulation  j  it  affords  opportunities  for  all 
classes  of  men  to  arrange  themselves  according  to 
their  preferences  and  their  habits  of  thought;  and 

it   is  not  unfavourable  to  that  kindness  of  feelinc 

o 

which  the  Christian  can  cherish,  and  should  cherish, 

when  he  utters  in  the  sanctuary  the  article  of  his 

21* 


246  ORGANIZATION    AND   GOVERNMENT 

faith,  "  I  believe  in  the  holy  catholic  church,  the 
communion  of  saints."  The  attachment  of  a  sol- 
dier to  a  particular  company  or  squadron  need  not 
diminish  his  respect  for  other  divisions  of  the  armies 
of  his  country,  or  extinguish  his  love  for  her  liberty. 
His  being  joined  to  a  company  of  infantry  need  not 
make  him  feel  that  cavalry  is  useless,  or  involve  him 
in  a  controversy  with  the  artillery. 

We  ask  only  that  Episcopacy  should  not  assume 
arrogant  claims  j  that  she  should  be  willing  to  take 
her  place  among  other  denominations  of  Christians, 
entitled,  like  them,  to  all  the  tender  and  sympathetic 
affections  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  and  willing 
that  they  should  walk  in  the  liberty  wherewith 
Christ  has  made  his  people  free.  We  ask,  that 
while  we  cheerfully  concede  this,  she  also  should 
concede  to  all  those  who  "  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity,"  the  right  to  be  accredited  as 
being  true  churches  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  as  hav- 
ing a  valid   ministry  and  valid  ordinances.*     We 

*  This  right  is  conceded  in  form  by  the  author  of  the 
"Tract"  so  often  noticed  in  this  argument — Dr.  Onderdonk. 
"An  apparently  formidable,  yet  extraneous  difficulty,"  says 
he,  "often  raised,  is,  that  Episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  non- 
Episcopal  denominations.  By  the  present  writer  this  consequence 
is  not  allowed."  P.  6.  But  is  it  ever  conceded  in  any  other 
way,  or  ever  acted  on  ?  Is  there  any  recognition  of  the  minis- 
ters of  other  denominations  as  having  a  right  to  preach  the 
gospel?  Is  there  any  introduction  of  them  to  the  pulpits  of 
Episcopal  churches  ?  Would  such  an  introduction  by  any  of 
the  "inferior  clergy"  be  tolerated  or  connived  at  by  the  dio- 
cesan bishop?  To  ask  these  questions  is  to  answer  them.  But 
another  question  may  be  asked  here :  it  is,  How  can  many  of 


OF    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  247 

shall  have  no  contest  with  our  Episcopal  brethren 
for  loving  the  church  of  their  choice,  and  the  church 
in  which  they  seek  to  prepare  themselves  for  heaven. 
We  shall  not  utter  the  language  of  unkindness  for 
their  reverencing  the  ministerial  office  in  which  the 
spirits  of  Cranmer  and  Leighton  were  prepared  for 
their  eternal  rest.  Content  that  other  denomina- 
tions should  enjoy  like  freedom,  when  they  do  not 
arrogate  to  themselves  unholy  claims,  and  attempt 
to  "lord  it  over"  other  parts  of  "God's  heritage," 
we  shall  pray  for  their  success,  as  for  that  of  all 
other  Christians,  and  rejoice  in  their  advancement. 
But  the  moment  they  cross  this  line — the  moment 
they  make  any  advances  which  resemble  those  of 
the  papacy — the  moment  they  set  up  the  claim  of 
being  the  only  "  primitive  and  apostolical  church" — 
and  the  moment  they  speak  of  the  "  invalid  minis- 
try" and  the  "invalid  ordinances"  of  other  churches, 
and  regard  them  as  "  left  to  the  uncovenanted  mer- 
cies of  God"  —  that  moment  the  language  of  argu- 
ment and  of  Christian  rebuke  should  be  heard  from 
every  other  denomination.  There  are  minds  which 
can  investigate  the  Bible  as  well  as  the  advocates 
for  Episcopacy ;  there  are  pens  which  can  compete 

the  clergy  of  the  Episcopal  Church  be  satisfied  with  occupying 
such  a  position  in  regard  to  their  ministerial  brethren  of  other 
denominations,  as  to  have  the  fair  interpretation  of  their  con- 
duct to  be  that  they  regard  them  as  wholly  unauthorized  to 
preach  the  gospel?  Do  they  really  believe  this?  If  they  do 
not,  does  not  Christian  candour,  fairness,  independence,  and 
justice,  require  them  in  act  and  word  to  avow  it? 


248  ORGANIZATION   AND    GOVERNMENT 

with  any  found  in  the  Episcopal  Church;  and  there 
are  men  who  will  not  be  slow  to  rebuke  the  first 
appearance  of  arrogance  and  of  lordly  assumption, 
and  who  will  remind  them  that  the  time  has  gone  by 
when  an  appeal  to  the  infallible  church  will  answer 
in  this  controversy.  Arrogant  assumptions  do  not 
suit  the  present  state  of  intelligence  in  this  land,  or 
the  genius  of  our  institutions.  While  the  Episcopal 
Church  shall  seek,  by  kind  and  gentle  means,  to 
widen  its  influence,  like  the  flowing  of  a  river,  or 
like  the  dews  of  heaven,  we  shall  hail  its  advances  : 
when  she  departs  from  this  course,  and  utters  the 
language  of  authority  and  denunciation, — when  she 
endeavours  to  prostrate  other  churches,  as  with  the 
sweepings  of  the  mountain  torrent, — she  will  be  re- 
minded, by  a  voice  uttered  from  all  the  institutions 
of  these  times,  that  Episcopacy  has  had  its  reign  of 
authority  in  the  dark  ages  and  at  the  Vatican;  and 
that  the  very  genius  of  Protestantism  is,  that  one 
church  is  not  to  utter  the  language  of  arrogance  over 
another,  and  that  not  authority  or  denunciation, 
but  SCRIPTURAL  EXPOSITION,  is  to  determine  which 
is  in  accordance  with  the  book  of  God. 

We  have  no  war  to  wage  with  Episcopacy.  We 
know,  we  deeply  feel,  that  much  may  be  said  in 
favour  of  it,  apart  from  the  claim  which  has  been 
set  up  for  its  authority  from  the  New  Testament. 
Its  past  history,  in  some  respects,  makes  us  weep; 
in  others,  it  is  the  source  of  sincere  rejoicing  and 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  249 

praise.  We  cannot  forget,  indeed,  its  assumptions 
of  power,  or  hide  from  our  eyes  the  days  of  the 
papacy,  when  it  clothed  in  sackcloth  the  Christian 
world.  We  cannot  forget  the  days  in  its  history, 
when,  even  as  a  part  of  the  Protestant  religion,  it 
brought  "  a  numb  and  chill  stupidity  of  soul,  an  in- 
active blindness  of  mind,  upon  the  people,  by  its 
leaden  doctrine;"  we  cannot  forget  "the  frozen 
captivity"  of  the  church,  "  in  the  bondage  of  pre- 
lates;"* nor  can  we  remove  from  our  remembrance 
the  sufferings  of  the  Puritans,  and  the  bloody  scenes 
in  Scotland.  But  we  do  not  charge  this  on  the 
Episcopacy  of  our  times.  We  do  not  believe  that 
it  is  essential  to  its  existence.  With  more  grateful 
feelings  we  recall  other  events  of  its  history.  We 
associate  it  with  the  brightest  and  happiest  days  of 
religion,  and  liberty,  and  literature,  and  law.  We 
remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the 
church  in  England  took  its  firm  stand  against  the 
papacy;  and  that  this  was  its  form  when  Zion  rose 
to  light  and  splendour  from  the  dark  night  of  ages. 
We  remember  the  name  of  Cranmer — Cranmer, 
first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers ;  that 
it  was  by  his  steady  hand  that,  under  God,  the  real 
church  of  the  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the 
agitating  and  distressing  times  of  Henry  the  Eighth. 
We  remember  that  Grod  gave  this  distinguished  pre- 

*  Milton. 


250  ORGANIZATION   AND   GOVERNMENT 

late  access  to  the  heart  of  one  of  the  most  capri- 
cious, cruel,  inexorable,  blood-thirsty,  and  licentious 
monarchs  that  has  disgraced  the  world;  and  that 
for  the  sake  of  Cranmer  and  his  church,  he  con- 
ducted Henry  as  "by  a  hook  in  the  nose,"  and 
made  him  faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
when  faithful  to  none  else;  so  that,  perhaps,  the 
only  redeeming  trait  in  the  character  of  Henry  is 
his  fidelity  to  this  first  British  prelate  under  the 
reformation.*  The  world  will  not  soon  forget  the 
names  of  Latimer  and  Ridley,  and  Rogers  and 
Bradford ;  names  associated  in  the  feelings  of  Chris- 
tians with  the  long  list  of  ancient  confessors  "  of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,"  and  who  did 
honour  to  their  nature  and  to  mankind  by  sealing 
their  attachment  to  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flames. 
Nor  can  we  forget  that  we  owe  to  the  Episcopal 
Church  that  which  fills  our  mind  with  gratitude  and 
praise,  when  we  look  for  examples  of  consecrated 
talent,  elegant  literature,  and  humble  piety.  While 
men  honour  elevated  Christian  feeling — while  they 
revere  sound  learning — while  they  render  tribute  to 

*  It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  Cranmer  by  no 
means  entertained  the  modern  views  of  the  scriptural  authority 
of  bishops.  He  maintained  "that  the  appointment  to  spiritual 
offices  belongs  indifferently  to  bishops,  to  princes,  or  to  the 
people,  according  to  the  pressure  of  existing  circumstances. 
He  affirmed  the  original  identity  of  bishops  cutd  presbyters ; 
and  contended  that  nothing  more  than  mere  election  or  ap- 
pointment is  essential  to  the  sacerdotal  office,  without  conse- 
cration or  any  other  solemnity."  Le  Bas'  Life  of  Cranmer, 
vol.  i.  p.  197. 


OF   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH.  251 

clear  and  profound  reasoning — they  will  not  forget 
the  names  of  Barrow  and  Taylor,  of  Tillotson, 
Hooker,  and  Butler;  and  when  they  think  of 
humble,  pure,  sweet,  heavenly  piety,  their  minds 
will  recur  instinctively  to  the  name  of  Leighton. 
Such  names  do  honour  to  the  world.  When  we 
think  of  them,  we  have  it  not  in  our  hearts  to  utter 
one  word  against  a  church  which  has  thus  done  ho- 
nour to  our  race  and  to  our  common  Christianity. 

Such  we  wish  Episcopacy  still  to  be.  There  are 
minds  and  hearts,  we  doubt  not,  which  will  find 
more  edification  in  the  forms  of  worship  in  that 
church  than  in  any  other.  To  all  who  hold  essen- 
tial truth,  we  bid  God-speed  j  and  for  all  such  we 
lift  our  humble  supplications  to  the  God  of  all  mercy, 
that  he  will  make  them  the  means  of  spreading  the 
gospel  around  the  globe.  We  have  never  doubted 
that  many  of  the  purest  flames  of  devotion  which 
rise  from  the  earth  ascend  from  the  altars  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  and  that  many  of  the  purest 
spirits  which  the  earth  contains  minister  at  those 
altars,  or  breathe  forth  their  prayers  and  praises 
in  language  consecrated  by  the  use  of  piety  for 
centuries. 

We  have  but  one  wish  in  regard  to  Episcopacy. 
We  wish  her  not  to  assume  arrogant  claims.  We 
wish  her  not  to  utter  the  language  of  denunciation. 
We  wish  her  to  fall  in  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
Our  desire  is  that  she  may  become  throughout — 


252  THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH. 

what  we  would  fain  hope  she  is  increasingly  be- 
coming— the  warm,  devoted  friend  of  revivals  and 
of  missionary  operations.  She  is  consolidated  ;  well- 
marshalled;  under  an  efficient  system  of  laws;  and 
pre-eminently  fitted  for  powerful  action  in  the  field 
of  Christian  warfare.  We  desire  to  see  her, — with 
her  dense,  solid  organization ;  with  her  unity  of 
movement ;  with  her  power  of  maintaining  the  posi- 
tion which  she  takes;  and  with  her  eminent  ability 
to  advance  the  cause  of  sacred  learning  and  the 
love  of  order  and  of  law, — accompanying  other 
churches  in  the  conquests  of  redemption  in  an 
alienated  world;  and  whatever  positions  may  be 
assigned  to  other  denominations,  we  will  cherish 
the  hope  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  destined  yet 
to  consecrate  her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of 
makiug  a  perpetual  aggression  on  the  territories  of 
sin  and  of  death. 


THE    END. 


STJKRBOTTPED  BT   L.  JOHXSOS   *   CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  01021   6895 


